Common intention under Section 34 IPC is inferable from prior concert, verbal exhortation, and collective subsequent conduct.

On 09.06.1984, at approximately 08:00 AM, the deceased, Jagat Narain Pandey, was watering his field.

The three accused—Raj Narain (armed with a gun), Kamlesh (armed with a lathi), and Rajendra Prasad (armed with a spade and lathi)—arrived and forcibly diverted the water course to their own field.

When the deceased resisted, Kamlesh and Rajendra exhorted Raj Narain to kill him.

Raj Narain subsequently fired his gun, hitting the deceased in the chest and causing his immediate death.

The incident was witnessed by the complainant (PW-1) and his brother-in-law (PW-2).

The Trial Court convicted Raj Narain under Section 302 IPC and the other two under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Raj Narain died during the pendency of the appeal, causing the appeal to abate as against him.

1. Whether the appellants Kamlesh and Rajendra Prasad shared a common intention with the main assailant, Raj Narain, to attract liability under Section 34 IPC.

2. Whether the medical evidence regarding the time of death and the nature of fire-arm injuries contradicted the ocular testimony.

3. Whether the recording of the accused’s statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on a proforma belonging to the repealed 1898 Code vitiated the trial.

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC for murder and Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention, which establishes joint liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of a shared purpose.

It relied on Ramesh Singh @ Photti Vs. State of A.P. to infer common intention from conduct.

The Court relied on Pandurang Vs. State of Hyderabad regarding prior concert.

Procedurally, the Court applied Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 484 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (Repeal and Savings), alongside Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to address the validity of forms used from the old Code.

The Court observed that common intention is a state of mind often inferred from conduct.

Here, the appellants arrived together armed with weapons, participated in the diversion of water, and specifically exhorted the main assailant to kill the deceased, which established a meeting of minds under Section 34 IPC.

Regarding medical discrepancies, the Court held that the presence of 250cc of semi-digested food was consistent with village habits of taking light sustenance before morning work, thus supporting the 08:00 AM timeline.

The "charring" on the wounds and the dispersal of pellets explained how two injuries could result from a single close-range fire.

On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that using the old 1898 Code proforma for Section 313 statements was a mere irregularity under Section 484(2)(b) Cr.P.C. and caused no prejudice to the accused.

Finally, the Court noted that any negligence in investigation, such as the non-recovery of the weapon, does not warrant acquittal when ocular evidence is found trustworthy.

It held that the common intention to murder was clearly established through the appellants' overt acts and exhortation.

The ocular evidence was found consistent with the medical reports.

The procedural lapse in using the old Code's proforma did not vitiate the trial as no prejudice was established.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life imprisonment sentences of Kamlesh and Rajendra Prasad under Section 302/34 IPC.

The appellants were directed to surrender within two weeks.