Common intention to commit murder may form during the occurrence and attract joint liability.

The appeals arose from a land dispute and an occurrence on 27 July 2016, during which the prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted members of the informant’s family with spades and a farsa. Yugal Kishore Chaudhary and Shiv Chandra Chaudhary died from their injuries; other family members were also injured.

The trial court convicted Monu Kumar and Deepak Kumar under Sections 302 and 323/34 IPC; Anjani Chaudhary under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 504/34 IPC; and Anoj Chaudhary under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. It acquitted the appellants of the other charged offences.

The appellants challenged their convictions, disputing the eyewitness evidence and, alternatively, seeking the benefit of Exceptions 1 or 4 to Section 300 IPC; Anoj also challenged the finding of grievous injury supporting his Section 325 conviction.

1. Whether the eyewitness and medical evidence proved the appellants’ participation and supported the convictions for murder and related offences

2. Whether the deaths fell within Exception 1 or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, given that the quarrel arose suddenly over the disputed land

3. Whether the evidence, particularly the delayed injury certificate, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Anoj caused grievous injury to Ram Balak Chaudhary

Sections 302, 323, 325 and 34 IPC governed the offences and joint liability; Section 34 applies where a shared intention is established, which may form during the occurrence and may be inferred from the participants’ conduct, manner of attack, weapons and injuries (Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521).

Under Section 300, Exception 1 requires grave and sudden provocation that deprives the offender of self-control, while Exception 4 requires a sudden fight without premeditation and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly or unusually.

Evidence of interested or inimical witnesses must be scrutinised carefully, but is not to be rejected merely for that reason if it is credible (Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452).

A conviction for grievous hurt requires reliable proof of the grievous injury.

The Court found that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 consistently described the occurrence and that their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence establishing repeated injuries to the deceased persons’ heads.

Their relationship to the deceased and the parties’ prior hostility did not, without more, make their testimony unreliable; nor did the failure to call independent witnesses warrant rejection of their evidence.

The Court inferred a common intention formed during the occurrence from the appellants’ repeated assaults on vital parts of the unarmed deceased persons, and found the attack sufficiently cruel and excessive to exclude Exception 4; the evidence did not establish grave and sudden provocation for Exception 1.

By contrast, Anoj’s alleged grievous injury to Ram Balak rested on a certificate prepared about six weeks after the occurrence, unsupported by contemporaneous treatment records or X-ray evidence, and was therefore insufficient to sustain Section 325 IPC. The simple injuries to Suman supported liability under Section 323 IPC.

Anoj Chaudhary’s conviction under Section 325 IPC was set aside, but his conviction under Section 323 IPC was upheld. As he had already been in custody for more than the maximum one-year sentence under Section 323 IPC, he and his sureties were discharged from their bail-bond liabilities; his appeal was partly allowed.