Mere presence at the scene, without reliable proof of common intention, cannot sustain murder liability under Section 34 IPC.

Jhamman Sao was found dead with a ligature mark on his neck.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased’s brother, Neecha Sao, dragged him into a room while Neecha’s son, Chopal Sao, stood at the doorway.

The prosecution’s principal witness to this part of the occurrence was the deceased’s 11-year-old son, PW-5, Mahabir Kumar Sao.

The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Neecha Sao died during the appeal, and his appeal abated; the appeal proceeded as to Chopal Sao alone.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Chopal Sao shared a common intention with Neecha Sao to murder Jhamman Sao and participated in the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC

2. Whether PW-5’s evidence and the surrounding circumstances provided a reliable basis for sustaining Chopal Sao’s conviction

Sections 302 and 34 IPC govern murder and joint liability for a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention; common intention may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, but cannot be presumed solely from relationship, presence, or prior enmity.

Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, conviction may rest on a sole witness if that evidence is wholly reliable; the quality, cogency, and credibility of the evidence—not the number of witnesses—are decisive (Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91; Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433).

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must benefit the accused (Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 454; Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98).

The Court found material omissions between PW-5’s trial testimony and the account recorded by the Investigating Officer, including whether PW-5 had gone to school, returned home to fetch a spade, and seen Neecha Sao with one foot inside and one outside the doorway.

The prosecution did not independently verify PW-5’s school attendance or explain his presence at the scene, weakening the reliability of the account on which the case substantially depended.

PW-5 attributed no act of violence to Chopal Sao; the allegation against him was principally that he stood at the doorway.

The Court held that this evidence, together with the other circumstances, did not reliably establish that Chopal Sao shared the intention to murder or participated in furtherance of that intention.

The medical evidence supported the finding that the death resulted from hanging, but the rope and ligature mark did not independently connect Chopal Sao to the fatal injury.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentence, and discharged Chopal Sao from his bail-bond liabilities.