The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a significant ruling overturning the 42-year-old conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The division bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Madan Pal Singh, held that mere exhortation without proof of common intention or active participation cannot form the basis of a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose from an incident in which the appellant, along with a co-accused, encountered the deceased in what was found to be a spontaneous altercation. During this episode, the appellant was alleged to have uttered the words “Maaro saale ko” (“Kill the fellow”), after which the co-accused inflicted fatal injuries on the victim. The trial court had interpreted this statement as conclusive evidence of the appellant’s common intention and consequently convicted him of murder.
On appeal, however, the High Court observed that the essential ingredients of Section 34 were not satisfied. The Court explained that for a conviction under this provision, the prosecution must prove not only a common intention but also participation, whether direct or indirect, in the crime. The judges highlighted that the mere presence of an accused at the scene, combined with a statement of exhortation, does not automatically establish the existence of a common intention to commit murder.
The bench examined the facts closely and noted that the appellant and the co-accused had met the deceased by chance while returning from their respective workplaces. There was no evidence to suggest that they had preplanned the crime or that they had assembled with a shared design to commit murder. The incident was spontaneous, and the Court found no material on record that could demonstrate the appellant’s active participation or his alignment with the actual assailant’s intent.
The Court further observed that statements of exhortation alone are inherently weak evidence and must be treated with caution. It recognized the common tendency in criminal trials to implicate additional individuals by ascribing to them the role of exhorters, even when no corroborating evidence supports such claims. Therefore, unless exhortation is coupled with reliable and cogent evidence of overt or covert participation, it cannot lead to criminal liability under Section 34.
Reiterating established principles of criminal law, the Court stressed that conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the appellant’s words were accompanied by any act or conduct indicating a shared design with the co-accused. In the absence of such evidence, the Court concluded that the appellant’s role did not meet the statutory requirements for holding him guilty of murder.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant after more than four decades of imprisonment. The ruling not only brought relief to the appellant but also reinforced the principle that criminal liability under the doctrine of common intention cannot be imposed lightly. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s duty to scrutinize evidence with care, particularly when convictions rest on the fragile ground of alleged exhortation, and underlines the need for clear, credible, and corroborated proof before depriving an individual of liberty for life.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.