Presence without common intention or overt fatal act precludes vicarious liability for murder under Section 34 IPC.

The incident occurred on May 12, 1999, at approximately 9:30 p.m. in Village Sarsi, where a group of individuals allegedly assaulted the deceased, Deshpal Singh, with firearms and other weapons

An FIR was lodged at 10:45 p.m., and the injured’s statement was recorded as a dying declaration

The victim succumbed to injuries the following morning

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed this conviction in 2011

While the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the co-accused (the principal assailant), it entertained the present Appellant’s challenge regarding his vicarious liability

1. Whether the prosecution established that the Appellant shared a common intention with the principal accused to commit murder under Section 34 of the IPC

2. Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained in the absence of a specific role or fatal injury attributed to the Appellant

The Court applied Section 34 of the IPC (common intention) and Section 302/307 of the IPC (murder/attempt to murder)

It relied on the landmark precedent Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor, which established that common intention requires a "pre-arranged plan" and "prior meeting of minds"

Further, it cited Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad to distinguish between "similar intention" and "common intention"

Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu v. State of Karnataka, noting that intention must be inferred from conduct, not conjecture

The principle from Munni Lal v. State of M.P. was used to affirm that mere presence without proof of participation is insufficient for conviction under Section 34

The Court observed that the Appellant arrived at the scene after the principal accused had already fired the fatal shot, approaching from a different direction

This sequence of events negated the possibility of a pre-arranged plan or prior concert

Regarding the evidence, the dying declaration did not attribute the fatal injury to the Appellant

Furthermore, an injured witness (PW-6) testified that when the Appellant raised his firearm, PW-6 intervened by lifting the barrel, causing the shot to go upward

Consequently, while the Appellant’s presence with a firearm indicated involvement, it did not demonstrate an intent to kill in furtherance of a common intention

The Court reasoned that since the act was committed with the knowledge of its dangerous consequences but without established common intent for murder, the offence should be downgraded

Given that the incident occurred in 1999 and the Appellant had already served approximately 9 years and 9 months in prison—nearly the maximum ten-year term for Section 307—the Court sentenced him to the period already undergone. The appeal was partly allowed, and the Appellant was ordered to be released from his bail bonds