Constructive liability under Section 34 requires proof of shared intention, not mere presence or prior quarrel.

On 16 July 2020, a quarrel occurred between deceased Jayasurya and the accused persons at Azad Chowk, Dotopara.

The prosecution alleged that appellant Loknath Bandhe brought a wooden plank (*chaukki*) and repeatedly assaulted Jayasurya, while Jai Kishan Bandhe and others also participated in the assault.

Jayasurya was taken to hospital and subsequently died while being referred to Raipur.

An FIR was initially registered under Sections 294, 324, 506 and 34 IPC, and Section 302 IPC was later added after his death.

The prosecution relied principally on eyewitness PW-3 Parasram, oral statements allegedly made by the deceased to PW-4, PW-5 and PW-9, medical evidence, recoveries and forensic material.

The Sessions Court convicted both appellants under Section 302 IPC and other charged offences, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fine.

Both appellants challenged the conviction in appeal.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Loknath Bandhe inflicted the fatal injuries on Jayasurya.

Whether Loknath’s act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC, particularly in the context of a sudden quarrel.

Whether Loknath’s conviction under Section 201 IPC was independently sustainable.

Whether Jai Kishan Bandhe’s presence during the quarrel and alleged participation in the assault established his common intention and constructive liability under Section 34 IPC.

Whether the evidence against Jai Kishan was sufficient to prove his individual participation in the fatal assault beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC governing murder, Sections 299 and 300 IPC concerning culpable homicide and the exceptions to murder, and Section 304 Part-I IPC concerning culpable homicide committed with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies where death is caused without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct.

The Court relied on *K. Ravi Kumar v. State of Karnataka*, (2014) 14 SCC 588, and *Muthu v. State*, Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2024, for these principles.

Section 34 IPC imposes constructive liability where criminal acts are done in furtherance of a proved common intention, but common intention cannot be presumed merely from presence or prior participation in a quarrel; it must arise from proved conduct and circumstances.

The Court further held that related or interested witnesses cannot be rejected solely because of their relationship, although their evidence requires careful scrutiny.

Medical and recovery evidence are generally corroborative and cannot displace credible ocular evidence unless there is a fundamental inconsistency.

An oral dying declaration may support conviction only when its consistency, voluntariness and reliability are satisfactorily established.

Section 201 IPC requires proof of causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information with the requisite knowledge or intention.

The homicidal nature of Jayasurya’s death was conclusively established by the post-mortem and medical evidence, which showed multiple lacerated and punctured wounds, rib fractures, excessive blood loss and shock.

As against Loknath, PW-3 gave direct evidence that he repeatedly assaulted Jayasurya with a wooden plank; this evidence was supported by the surrounding circumstances, the statements attributed to the deceased and the recovery of the plank.

However, the occurrence arose from a sudden verbal altercation, with no proved prior conspiracy or preparation to kill.

Although the repeated use of a wooden plank and the injuries to the chest showed an intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, the prosecution did not establish a premeditated intention to kill.

The case therefore fell within the rationale of Exception 4 to Section 300, but the proved mental element attracted Section 304 Part-I rather than Part-II.

The Section 201 conviction was unsustainable because there was no independent proof that Loknath caused disappearance of evidence or furnished false information with the requisite intention.

In Jai Kishan’s case, the principal eyewitness attributed the specific plank assault to Loknath and did not assign Jai Kishan a definite fatal act.

The oral dying-declaration evidence was inconsistent as to the sequence and individual roles, no weapon was recovered from Jai Kishan, and the medical evidence did not connect him with any particular injury.

His presence in the initial quarrel and the omnibus allegation that he joined the assault were insufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Loknath Bandhe’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC, and he was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment; his conviction under Section 201 IPC was set aside.

He was directed to serve the modified sentence, with custody from 17 July 2022 taken into account as applicable.

Criminal Appeal No. 1825 of 2022 was allowed.

Jai Kishan Bandhe’s convictions and sentences were set aside, and he was acquitted by extending the benefit of reasonable doubt; his bail bonds and sureties were discharged.

He was nevertheless directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A CrPC, corresponding to Section 481 BNSS, for appearance before the Supreme Court if required.