Proof of prior meeting of minds is mandatory to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC.

The Appellants, who are brothers, were convicted by the Trial Court for offenses under Sections 427/34, 452/34, and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On February 27, 2022, Appellant No. 1 (Saji Gupta) had a verbal altercation with the complainant, Sanjay Charve (PW-2), at approximately 8:00 PM; the complainant slapped Saji and sent him away.

Later that night, at 11:00 PM, both Appellants entered the complainant's premises, damaged his scooter, and Ajay Gupta (Appellant No. 2) stabbed the complainant in the stomach with a knife.

Medical evidence confirmed a four-inch deep abdominal wound with protruding omentum (intestines), requiring surgery.

The Trial Court sentenced Ajay Gupta to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and convicted Saji Gupta under the same section via Section 34 IPC.

1. Whether the act of Ajay Gupta (Appellant No. 2) in stabbing the victim in the abdomen constitutes an "attempt to murder" under Section 307 IPC.

2. Whether Saji Gupta (Appellant No. 1) shared a "common intention" with his brother to commit an attempt to murder under Section 34 IPC.

3. Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate considering the appellants' ages (19 and 21 years) and the lack of prior criminal history.

The Court applied Section 307 IPC regarding attempt to murder and Section 34 IPC regarding acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

It relied on the principle from Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 193, which distinguishes "common intention" from "same or similar intention" and notes that common intention requires a prior meeting of minds.

It further cited Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 SCC 433 to emphasize that the prosecution must establish a pre-planned shared intention for a conviction under Section 34 IPC.

Regarding penology, the court invoked Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, advocating for a reformative and therapeutic approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one.

The Court affirmed Ajay Gupta’s conviction under Section 307 IPC, noting that the ocular testimony of the victim (PW-2) and his daughter (PW-1) was corroborated by medical evidence (PW-5) showing a life-threatening injury to a vital organ inflicted with a sharp weapon.

However, regarding Saji Gupta, the Court found that although he was present and participated in the trespass and property damage, there was no evidence of a "prior meeting of minds" to kill the complainant.

The court noted that no knife was recovered from Saji, and the medical report indicated only a single stab wound inflicted by Ajay.

The initial dispute (where Saji was slapped) did not automatically translate into a shared common intention for murder during the second incident.

Consequently, the Court held that Saji's conviction under Section 307/34 was unsustainable, though his convictions for house-trespass (452 IPC) and mischief (427 IPC) were upheld.

The conviction and sentence of Ajay Gupta (Appellant No. 2) under Sections 427, 452, and 307 IPC were upheld, but his sentence for Section 307 IPC was reduced from seven years to the period already served (~4 years and 1 month).

The conviction of Saji Gupta (Appellant No. 1) under Section 307/34 IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of that charge.

His convictions under Sections 427/34 and 452/34 IPC were upheld, but his sentence was reduced to the period already served (~10 months and 7 days).

Both Appellants were ordered to be released immediately if not required in other cases.