Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court

"Mere Presence at Crime Scene and Alleged Relationship with Co-Accused Is Not Proof of Guilt under Section 34 IPC", In a compelling reaffirmation of fundamental principles of criminal law, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of Raj Bala, who had been serving a life sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC, ruling that “common intention” cannot be presumed merely from the accused's presence at the scene or her association with co-accused Ram Bharosey.

Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi and Justice Salil Kumar Rai held that the entire prosecution case against Raj Bala was vitiated by contradictions, absence of corroboration, and failure to establish the essential ingredients of common intention. The Court categorically declared, “Mere physical presence does not attract vicarious liability under Section 34 unless the prosecution proves a pre-arranged plan and active participation in the crime.”

“No Firearm Injury, No Common Intention, No Conviction”: Court Dismantles Prosecution Case With Medical Evidence

According to the FIR, the incident occurred on November 10, 1985, when Raj Bala, along with Ram Bharosey and others, allegedly attacked members of a neighbouring family. While Ram Bharosey was accused of firing a fatal shot that killed one Mahendra Pal Singh, Raj Bala was alleged to have fired a country-made pistol at PW-2 Kailash, causing injuries.

However, the Court found the prosecution’s version to be in direct conflict with the medical evidence on record. The injury report of Kailash (Exhibit Ka-20), prepared by Dr. S.K. Jaiswal (PW-7), recorded only simple injuries caused by hard and blunt objects. Significantly, there was no evidence of any firearm injury, and injury No.1—initially kept under observation—was never followed up with an X-ray, nor was it shown to have been caused by a bullet.

The Court took serious note of this discrepancy and held that “The injury report completely falsifies the prosecution’s allegation that Raj Bala fired at Kailash. Without any firearm injury or corroboration by X-ray, the allegation of shooting becomes not only doubtful but medically untenable.”

“Presence Alone Cannot Convict”: High Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents to Discard Section 34 IPC Charge

The Court reminded that Section 34 IPC requires proof of a common intention, not mere passive presence or posturing. Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings such as Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2023) and Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2011), the Bench held:

“Section 34 IPC demands evidence of a pre-arranged plan, a meeting of minds, and active participation. The prosecution failed to establish any of these against Raj Bala. Her presence in the courtyard, or even her alleged personal relationship with Ram Bharosey, cannot substitute legal proof of common intention.”

The Bench also observed that the Trial Court had completely ignored the contradictions between oral testimony and medical evidence, and failed to appreciate that accused Raj Bala was neither found with a weapon nor did the injury match the alleged act of firing.

“Suspicion Is Not Proof, Jealousy Is Not Motive”: Court Flags Vindictive Prosecution

A particularly stinging observation came as the Court addressed the possible motive behind Raj Bala's implication. It noted that Raj Bala was alleged to be the paramour of co-accused Ram Bharosey, and held that “The prosecution’s story appears to be coloured by personal animosity, and Raj Bala’s presence was weaponized to impute a false role in the incident.”

The Court went further to observe that “In the absence of any evidence showing that Raj Bala participated in planning or executing the crime, her implication seems more a product of neighbourhood vengeance than legal culpability.”

Trial Court Criticised for “Mechanical Conviction” Without Factual Foundation

While overturning the conviction, the High Court criticised the Trial Court for failing to properly examine the elements necessary for invoking Section 34 IPC, noting that:

“The Trial Court convicted Raj Bala without explaining how the ingredients of common intention were satisfied. It did not examine the contradiction between the oral account and medical report, nor did it explain how Raj Bala's role was established beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Bench underscored that in a case resting on the theory of vicarious liability, the Court must be cautious and clear in its findings. “The prosecution’s inability to prove premeditation, preparation or participation of Raj Bala leaves only one conclusion—benefit of doubt must follow,” the Court ruled.

 “Doubtful Allegations Cannot Justify Life Imprisonment”

While acquitting Raj Bala, the Court emphasized that conviction under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC requires more than collective presence at the time of offence. It requires participation, shared intention and independent corroboration of alleged acts.

The judgment concluded with the observation that “Raj Bala appears to have been dragged into the case due to her association with Ram Bharosey. But the law does not punish by association—it punishes on proof.”

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted Raj Bala, stating that she “is entitled to the benefit of doubt and her bail bond stands cancelled.”

Date of Decision: December 5, 2025