Conviction Under Section 307 IPC Unsustainable Without Proved Common Intention or Clear Overt Act to Kill

On January 20, 2000, the informant (PW 10) and his brothers were guarding harvested paddy when four accused (the appellants), armed with firearms, surrounded them due to a pre-existing land dispute

Appellant No. 1 fired a shot that missed; subsequently, Appellant No. 4 (Prasidh Gope) fired a shot hitting Arbind Yadav in the mouth, causing grievous injury

The Trial Court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda) convicted the appellants under Sections 307/34, 342 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to seven years R.I.

The injured victim died before he could be examined at trial

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of independent witnesses and failure to prove common intention

1. Whether common intention under Section 34 of the IPC was established to attract vicarious liability for the conviction under Section 307 IPC

2. Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case

The court applied Section 34 IPC regarding acts done in furtherance of common intention

Section 307 IPC regarding attempt to murder

It relied on Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that common intention requires a prior meeting of minds and substantial, concrete evidence of shared intent

It further applied the "litmus test" from Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. to determine criminal intent, considering factors like the nature of the weapon, whether the blow was aimed at a vital part, and whether there was premeditation

Precedents like Joseph v. State of Kerala and Sivamani v. State were used to distinguish between Section 307 and lesser offenses based on intent versus knowledge

The Court observed that while the medical evidence (PW 11) confirmed a grievous firearm injury involving a fractured mandible, the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration as five out of thirteen witnesses turned hostile

Regarding Section 34, the Court noted that while specific overt acts were attributed to Prasidh Gope, the common intention of the other three appellants required stricter scrutiny because the incident occurred suddenly without immediate provocation

The Court found that although the act was dangerous, the evidence regarding the "intention to kill" was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC given the hostility of witnesses and the non-examination of the injured victim

Consequently, the Court determined that the offense was more accurately characterized under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) rather than an attempt to murder

The final holding modified the conviction from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 324 IPC and the Court reduced the seven-year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants, discharging them from their bail bonds