The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove shared common intention under S. 34, I. P. C. and the need for reliable evidence in criminal cases.

Judgment

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant before us was Accused No. 2 before the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka, He along with his father (A-1) and his younger brother (A-3) was charged for offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. and having found guilty was sentenced to imprisonment for life on that charge. The appellant and his brother Kustam (A-3) were" also charged for an offence punishable under S. 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to 3 years R. I. on that charge. On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Patna has confirmed the said conviction and sentence.

( 2 ) ALL the three accused persons preferred the above noted criminal appeal before this Court and this Court as per its order dated 9-2-2001 dismissed the appeal so far as it concerned Hazi Shariff (A-l) and Kustam alias Khurshid (A-3), while notice was issued in regard to appeal filed by the present appellant and on return of the said notice after hearing the parties the leave was granted on 23-4-2001, therefore, the (appeal of the present appellant alone as against the judgment of the High Court is before us.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that there was some dispute between the father of the appellant and one Manir Mian the deceased in this case in regard to some land. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 14-6-1996 in the morning at about 9 a. m. the A-1 was taking a pumping set in a bullock cart for irrigating his land and when the cart reached near the house of one Sheikh Madhu the deceased who was there asked A-1 not to use the pump for irrigating the land until the dispute as to the land is settled and at that time the deceased also stopped the bullock cart. A-l, getting angered by this obstruction caused by the deceased, the first accused allegedly called the appellant and accused No. 3 shouting that the deceased is stopping his cart. On hearing this shout, it is stated that the appellant and A-3 Kustam came to the spot armed with firearms, appellant carrying pistol and Kustam carrying a musket. On their arrival, their father a-1 allegedly exhorted them to kill Manir. It is the further case of the prosecution that on this exhortation the 3rd accused fired from his musket which hit the chest of Manir consequent to which injury, he died, this was noticed by deceaseds wife PW-9. On hearing the sound of firing, it is stated, that the deceaseds mother (PW-7) and other members of the deceaseds family came there, at which time the prosecution states that the appellant herein fired two shots one of which grazed the mother-in-law (PW-7) and pw-4 the other hit the wall of the house. Thereafter the prosecution case is that the accused persons went away from the place of incident. On the above allegation, the three accused persons including the appellant herein were charged under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the said charges as stated above, the three accused persons were convicted.

( 4 ) FROM the facts narrated above, it is seen that because of the enmity between A-1 and the deceased on an exhortation made by A-1, A-3 fired a shot from the musket which caused the death of the deceased. For this A-1 was convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. while A-3 was convicted under S. 3o2 simplicitor as also under S. 27 of the Arms Act. Even though there has been no overt act on the part of the appellant in the killing of the deceased, he was convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. and under s. 27 of the Arms Act. Since the appeal of accused Nos. 1 and 3 has been dismissed by this Court, in this appeal we will have to only examine the role of the appellant in the incident that occurred on 14-6-1996 in which Manir lost his life. From the prosecution evidence, the overt act attributed to the appellant is that after A-3 shot Manir, the appellant allegedly shot from his revolver causing an injury to PW-7 and PW-4 which the doctor described in the first In