Sect. 34 IPC | Appellant Was Caught Before the First Shot Was Fired: Patna High Court Strikes Down Life Sentence In Murder Of Police Officer

“When the appellant was apprehended, the deceased had not yet suffered the bullet injury — the finding of common intention is therefore legally unsustainable.” — Patna High Court overturned the conviction and life sentence of the appellant Tarni Mandal, who had earlier been found guilty for the murder of Sub-Inspector Avinash Kumar during a police encounter. The Court ruled that the requirement of common intention under Section 34 IPC was not satisfied, and that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act were wrongly invoked, since no overt act, abuse, or weapon was attributable to the appellant.

“Mere Presence Without Participation Is Not Conspiracy”: High Court Declares Failure to Prove Mens Rea and Common Intention Fatal to Prosecution’s Case

In a landmark judgment with wide implications on group liability in criminal law, a Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman held that "criminal liability cannot be imposed on conjecture, nor can a life sentence be sustained where the basic ingredients of common intention are absent." The judgment emphatically reaffirmed the necessity for concrete evidence of shared intent or active participation in a criminal act to sustain a conviction under Section 34 of the IPC.

On the evening of June 23, 2014, a patrol team led by S.I. Avinash Kumar responded to reports of armed miscreants causing panic in the Panchrukhi market area of Bhagalpur. According to the FIR lodged by Havaldar Devendra Kumar, during the operation, Tarni Mandal was apprehended first by S.I. Avinash himself, and shortly thereafter, unidentified assailants fired at the police, fatally injuring the officer.

Despite being unarmed, and despite eyewitness accounts affirming he had already been caught before shots were fired, Tarni Mandal was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 353 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying on theory of common intention.

The High Court framed and decisively ruled on the following legal questions:

Whether a person apprehended before the offence is committed can be convicted under Section 34 IPC?

The Court observed that “Section 34 IPC requires either pre-planning or the forming of a common intention during the act itself. Here, the appellant was already in custody. There was no possibility of him participating in any common plan.”

The Court further clarified: “Appellant Tarni Mandal was apprehended by the deceased officer himself before any shot was fired. No weapon was recovered from him. No act of firing was attributed to him. Blood on his clothes was the result of his proximity to the deceased during the fatal injury.”

This finding rendered the invocation of Section 34 IPC entirely baseless, as per the Court’s analysis of the law and facts.

Whether the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was rightly invoked against the appellant?

The evidence showed that abuses using caste-related slurs were made by the other accused, not by Tarni Mandal. The High Court noted:

“Abusing in the name of caste by others, while the appellant stood apprehended and silent, does not make him culpable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The foundational ingredient — mens rea and actus reus — is absent.”

The Bench further declared that mechanical invocation of the SC/ST Act in such circumstances dilutes the seriousness and sanctity of the legislation meant for social justice and protection of marginalized communities.

Whether the absence of recovery of any weapon from the appellant exonerates him under the Arms Act?

Since the appellant was unarmed at the time of arrest, and no firearm was recovered from or associated with him, the Court ruled:

“Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be invoked in a vacuum. The prosecution has failed to prove either possession or use of any arm by the appellant. Therefore, conviction under the Arms Act is illegal.”

What the Evidence Actually Proved: A Detailed Judicial Analysis

The Court exhaustively examined the depositions of five key eyewitnesses (PWs 4 to 8) — all members of the police patrolling party. Each of them categorically stated that the appellant had been caught by the deceased and PW7 Navneet Kumar prior to the first shot being fired. Notably:

“When Sahab (S.I. Avinash Kumar) received injury, we had already caught the accused,” deposed PW7 Navneet Kumar, adding, “The arrested man did not have any weapon.”

PW6 Navin Kumar confirmed: “The accused was caught by Navneet before the shots were fired. He was unarmed.”

These statements were consistent with the First Information Report, which stated that: “...the middle-aged accused running back was caught by the officer. Seeing this, other criminals fired a shot, which grievously injured the officer.”

The Court thus concluded that “the appellant was not even in a position to conspire, let alone act — he had no weapon, made no abusive remarks, and was under custody at the time of the crime.”

The Court also cited medical and forensic evidence which did not link the appellant to any firearm discharge, nor did it support any inference of his role in the attack.

The High Court summed up its decision by holding:

“The prosecution has failed to establish the appellant’s involvement in the fatal act of shooting. The requirement of common intention under Section 34 IPC is absent. Abuse in caste name was not attributed to the appellant. Arms were not recovered. Therefore, his conviction and life sentence cannot be sustained.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered the immediate release of Tarni Mandal, if not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2025