Mere restraint of a victim does not establish common intention to commit murder.

On 7 June 2001, the informant, Shambhu Mahto, was allegedly returning home when Fanindra Thakur fired at him, striking his right thigh; the appellant, Nandu Thakur, was alleged to have caught hold of him.

The doctor confirmed firearm injuries, described as simple and not fatal.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 307/34 and 341 IPC and acquitted him under Section 504 IPC.

Fanindra Thakur had died during the trial.

The appellant appealed, challenging, among other matters, proof of common intention and the significance of the Investigating Officer’s non-examination.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shared the common intention to commit an offence under Section 307 IPC and acted in furtherance of it by catching hold of the informant.

2. Whether the evidence established the ingredients of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC.

3. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in the circumstances of the case, caused prejudice sufficient to contribute to reasonable doubt.

Section 34 IPC requires proof that the accused shared a common intention and participated in the criminal act in furtherance of that intention; common intention may arise at the spur of the moment, but mere presence or a similar intention is insufficient.

For Section 307 IPC, the nature of the injury is not decisive; intention or knowledge must be assessed from the totality of the circumstances, including the weapon, targeted body part, manner of assault, and conduct.

Section 341 IPC requires proof of voluntary obstruction that prevents a person from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed.

Non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not automatically fatal; its effect depends on whether it caused prejudice or prevented the defence from testing material contradictions or omissions (Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 18 SCC 661).

The judgment also cited Gambhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC; number not stated), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 807, Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 825, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433, for the principles of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the requirements of Section 307, and proof of common intention.

The Court accepted that the informant sustained firearm injuries, corroborated by medical evidence, and noted that P.Ws. 1 to 4 attributed the act of catching hold of the informant to the appellant.

However, the firing was attributed to the deceased co-accused, and the Court considered whether the appellant’s conduct reliably established that he acted with the common intention to commit murder.

The remaining witnesses did not directly corroborate the assault, two witnesses were hostile, and the Investigating Officer was not examined.

Considering these circumstances cumulatively, the Court found reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s common intention; it did not treat the simple nature of the injury alone as excluding Section 307.

The same evidentiary concerns meant that the allegation of catching hold did not sufficiently establish wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC.

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, allowed the appeal, and directed that any fine deposited be returned.

The appellant, who was on provisional bail, was discharged from his bond and surety liabilities subject to Section 437-A CrPC.