Common Intention Can Be Formed On Spot Through Exhortation & Conduct; Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In 1984 Murder Case

"The plan need not be elaborate, nor is long interval of time required, it could arise and be formed suddenly either by their words or their acts," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be inferred from the conduct of the accused at the scene of the crime, including exhortations to kill.

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed that a "pre-arranged plan" does not necessitate a long interval of time and can be formed suddenly. The Court upheld the life imprisonment of two appellants involved in a 1984 murder arising from a watercourse dispute, emphasizing that their arrival armed at the spot and subsequent flight established a meeting of minds.

The dispute originated on June 9, 1984, when the appellants forcibly diverted a water channel in an orchard belonging to the deceased’s family. When the victim, Jagat Narain Pandey, confronted them, appellants Kamlesh and Rajendra Prasad exhorted the third accused, Raj Narain, to kill him. Raj Narain subsequently fired his gun, causing fatal injuries, after which all three accused fled the scene together.

The primary question before the Court was whether the appellants shared a common intention under Section 34 IPC despite only one individual firing the weapon. The Court was also called upon to determine if recording the accused's statements under Section 313 CrPC on proformas prescribed under the old 1898 Code vitiated the trial, and whether discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence were fatal to the prosecution.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND JUDGMENT

Scope And Application Of Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC

The Court delved deeply into the doctrine of constructive liability, noting that Section 34 IPC does not create a distinct offence but establishes a principle of joint liability. The bench observed that the essence of this liability lies in the existence of a common intention connecting the accused to the criminal act.

The Court emphasized that since intention is a state of mind, it must often be inferred from the conduct of the accused. The bench noted that "the inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene, mounted the attack, determination and concert with which the attack was made."

Common Intention Can Be Formed On The Spot

Citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, the High Court reiterated that while common intention presupposes a prior concert, such a plan need not be elaborate. The bench noted that a meeting of minds can occur right at the scene of the incident through words or actions.

The Court found that the appellants arrived at the field armed with a gun, lathi, and spade, which indicated a readiness to use force. The specific exhortation by Kamlesh and Rajendra Prasad to "kill the bastard" provided the necessary evidence of a sudden but clear common intention to commit murder.

"The conduct prior to the occurrence, at the time of occurrence and subsequent conduct of the appellants shows that they had come on spot armed with weapons and prepared to cut the course of water."

Recording Section 313 Statements On Old Proformas Not Vitiating

A key procedural challenge raised by the appellants was that their statements were recorded on forms prescribed under Section 364 of the repealed 1898 Code. The Court rejected this contention, pointing to Section 484(2)(b) of the CrPC 1973 and Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

The bench held that forms prescribed under the old Code are deemed to be prescribed under the corresponding provisions of the new Code. The Court ruled that unless the appellants could demonstrate actual prejudice, a mere reference to a wrong provision or the use of an old format constitutes a procedural irregularity that does not vitiate the trial.

Reconciling Medical Evidence With Ocular Testimony

The defense argued that while witnesses claimed only one shot was fired, the medical report showed two injuries. The Court accepted the doctor’s explanation that a single fire from a close range using a self-loaded cartridge could cause two wounds due to the dispersal of pellets and the impact of the wadding piece.

The bench observed that "injury No. 2 is nothing but a part of injury No. 1, which is on account of dispersal of pellets." It further noted that in cases involving country-made or non-standard weapons, the traditional principles of medical jurisprudence regarding standard firearms might not be strictly applicable.

"Any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case if the charge is otherwise proved."

Hostile Witness Testimony And Section 8 Of Evidence Act

The Court analyzed the testimony of P.W.4, who was declared hostile. Despite his attempt to distance himself from the murder, the Court noted that his cross-examination corroborated the time, place, and the presence of other witnesses.

Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant’s conduct in procuring a false affidavit from this witness to prevent him from testifying was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as "conduct" reflecting a consciousness of guilt. The bench refused to discard the testimony of the brother-in-law (P.W.2), holding that his presence was naturally explained.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge of murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions of Kamlesh and Rajendra Prasad were upheld. As the main assailant Raj Narain had died during the pendency of the appeal, his case stood abated. The surviving appellants were directed to surrender within two weeks to serve their life sentences.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026