Mere presence with a co-accused does not establish common intention to commit murder.

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1, who suspected the deceased Chandpasha of having an illicit relationship with his wife, and accused No. 2 followed the deceased’s autorickshaw and assaulted him with clubs and a stone, causing his death.

The prosecution relied on motive, evidence that the accused were seen following the deceased, recoveries of clubs and accused No. 1’s bloodstained clothes, and forensic evidence.

The Sessions Court convicted both accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment.

They appealed.

During the appeals, the State reported that accused No. 1 had died; his counsel stated that no legal representative had applied to continue the appeal.

Whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 2 shared a common intention with accused No. 1 to murder the deceased and participated in the crime.

What order should follow in accused No. 1’s appeal after his death, where no legal representative had applied to continue it.

The Court considered the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC: Section 302 concerns punishment for murder, while Section 34 makes participants jointly liable where a criminal act is done in furtherance of their common intention.

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence or association with another accused does not, without sufficient supporting evidence, establish participation or common intention.

The evidence and forensic findings supported the prosecution case against accused No. 1, including the motive, the recovery of his bloodstained clothes, and blood of the same group on those clothes, the clubs, and the deceased’s clothes.

As to accused No. 2, the Court found no alleged motive, no bloodstained clothing or comparable incriminating material, and no evidence beyond his presence in the autorickshaw with accused No. 1.

The shopkeeper said to have sold the clubs had turned hostile, and the circumstances did not prove that accused No. 2 accompanied accused No. 1 to the scene or shared an intention to kill.

The Court therefore gave accused No. 2 the benefit of doubt.

Accused No. 1’s appeal was dismissed after the Court noted his death and the absence of an application by his legal representatives to continue the appeal.

It set aside accused No. 2’s conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted him of that offence.