34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court

In a powerful affirmation of the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 IPC, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on 13/02/2026 dismissed a 44-year-old criminal appeal and upheld the conviction of two surviving appellants for a brutal village murder committed in broad daylight in 1979.

Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad confirmed the life imprisonment awarded under Section 302/34 IPC, holding that the accused “arrived together armed with deadly weapons, mounted a concerted assault and fled only after killing the deceased,” thereby establishing common intention beyond reasonable doubt.

A Murder Born of Enmity and Executed in Broad Daylight

The prosecution story unfolded against a backdrop of simmering hostility. The deceased Ram Shanker and the complainant Rajendra Prasad had been accused in the murder of the father of one of the appellants and had secured bail merely twenty-two days before the incident.

On 08.03.1979 at about 4:00 PM, as Ram Shanker and Rajendra Prasad were returning home, five accused persons allegedly emerged from an arhar field near Village Patkhauli, armed with gun, farsa, bhala and lathi. They chased, surrounded and dragged Ram Shanker nearly one hundred yards into a field before unleashing a merciless assault.

The FIR was lodged the same evening at 6:45 PM at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, approximately 6.5 miles away. The High Court noted that the FIR was prompt and found no delay or deliberation.

The Bench observed that the motive was “proximate and perpetuated,” but clarified that in a case resting on direct ocular evidence, motive plays only a corroborative role.

Procedural Objection on Section 313 CrPC Rejected

One of the principal grounds of challenge was that the accused’s statements were recorded under Section 364 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 instead of Section 313 of the 1973 Code.

Rejecting the argument, the Court held that the old Code stood repealed under Section 484 CrPC, 1973, but by virtue of Section 484(2)(b) read with Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, earlier forms are deemed to continue under corresponding provisions of the new Code.

The Bench held that mere use of an old proforma was “an irregularity and not an illegality,” and emphasized that no prejudice had been demonstrated. It reiterated the settled position that “merely by mentioning a wrong provision, a proceeding cannot be said to be vitiated.”

The Court further relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam and Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh to underline that while Section 313 CrPC is a valuable right, conviction is vitiated only where prejudice is shown or defence is not considered.

Transfer of Case: No Prejudice, No Illegality

The appellants also contended that the Presiding Officer who delivered the judgment could not have decided the case after an alleged transfer order of the High Court.

The Division Bench found that no such transfer order had been produced. The trial record indicated that the case had been transferred by name to the same Presiding Officer and that the accused had consented to his deciding the matter.

The Court found “no illegality or prejudice” and rejected the objection as misconceived.

Ocular Testimony Found Natural and Consistent

The prosecution examined three eye-witnesses — the complainant (PW-2), Gurucharan (PW-3) and Bhikham Datt (PW-4). The defence sought to discredit them as interested witnesses and pointed to minor contradictions.

The High Court held that relationship or proximity to the deceased is not a ground to discard otherwise reliable testimony. Citing Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, the Court observed that a close relation would ordinarily be “the last person to spare the real assailant and implicate a false person.”

The Bench noted that the slight variations in narration were natural and indicative of untutored witnesses. What remained consistent was the core narrative — that the accused were waiting in the field, emerged armed, dragged the deceased into the field and assaulted him relentlessly until death.

The Court observed that “two persons cannot narrate an incident in identical language,” and minor discrepancies do not erode credibility where the substratum remains intact.

Medical Evidence Reveals Brutality

The post-mortem report disclosed twenty-five ante-mortem injuries, including multiple lacerated and incised wounds, penetrating injuries, fractures of skull bones, jaw, ribs and limbs, and extensive contusions.

The doctor opined that the injuries were possible by lathi, farsa and ballam — precisely the weapons attributed by the eye-witnesses.

The Bench described the assault as “highly brutal,” observing that the injuries were fully consistent with the ocular account. The multiplicity and severity of fractures demonstrated that the accused did not retreat until death was certain.

“Common Intention” Clearly Established

The High Court gave a detailed exposition of Section 34 IPC, relying upon Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of A.P. It reiterated that common intention is seldom proved by direct evidence and must be inferred from circumstances.

The Court observed that the accused had assembled together, armed themselves with deadly weapons, concealed themselves in the field and launched a coordinated attack. They dragged the victim away from the road and continued the assault collectively.

From this conduct, the Bench held that “the inference of common intention is irresistible.”

It emphasized that even if a specific overt act is not attributed to each accused, liability under Section 34 arises where participation and shared intention are established.

No Parity with Acquitted Co-Accused

One co-accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt due to doubtful presence. The surviving appellants sought parity.

Rejecting the plea, the Court held that acquittal of one accused does not automatically entitle others to the same benefit. Where participation is proved beyond doubt, conviction stands independently.

Holding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the surviving appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC.

The sentence of life imprisonment was confirmed. The surviving appellants, who were on bail, were directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive measures were ordered.

The appeal stood abated qua the two appellants who had died during pendency.

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation that procedural irregularities without prejudice do not vitiate trial, that credible ocular testimony can sustain conviction even if witnesses are related, and that “common intention” may be decisively inferred from collective conduct and brutality of assault.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2026