Ocular testimony uncorroborated by medical evidence regarding overt acts fails to sustain conviction under Section 34 IPC.

On May 27, 1995, a scuffle occurred between the appellants and the deceased, Ramayan Ram.

It was alleged that the co-convict, Kishun Ram (whose appeal abated due to his death), inflicted a fatal blow on the deceased’s head with an iron rod (Sabbal), while the present appellants, armed with lathis, also participated in the assault.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries on May 31, 1995.

The trial court, vide judgment dated May 27, 2003, convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The appellants challenged this conviction, arguing that no specific overt act was attributed to them and that the fatal injury was solely caused by Kishun Ram.

Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC suffer from legal error, specifically regarding the proof of common intention to cause death?

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder

Section 34 of the IPC, which establishes the principle of joint liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention

the legal distinction between "common intention" and "similar intention" in the context of criminal liability

The High Court observed that the ocular evidence provided by P.W. 2 (informant) and P.W. 3 (wife of the deceased) attributed the fatal head injury exclusively to Kishun Ram, who had reportedly fetched the iron rod from his house during the scuffle.

The court noted that the present appellants played a passive role; although they were allegedly armed with lathis, the medical evidence (post-mortem report, Exhibit-2) did not corroborate an indiscriminate lathi assault.

Aside from the fatal head injury (fracture of the frontal bone), the other injuries were minor abrasions and bruises likely caused by the deceased falling to the ground.

The court reasoned that if the appellants had shared a common intention to kill, they would have used their weapons more decisively rather than waiting for Kishun Ram to fetch a tool.

Furthermore, material contradictions between the testimonies of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 regarding their presence at the scene created reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the ocular and medical evidence, which did not support the allegation of participation in the murder.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated May 27/28, 2003, acquitted the appellants by granting them the benefit of reasonable doubt, and discharged them from their bail bonds.