The central legal point established is the requirement of clear evidence of common intention for conviction under Section 34, IPC and the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused when doubt exists regarding common intention.

ORDER :

1. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2006, whereby the High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant, along with others, and set aside the conviction imposed on him under Sections 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). Further, the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC was converted into the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. However, the conviction imposed on the accused-appellant under Section 324 of the IPC was confirmed by the High Court.

2. The challenge before the High Court was against the judgment dated 28.10.2005, passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 9 of 2005 convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 148, 341, 324 and Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. The Trial Court sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC and in default of payment of fine thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The accused-appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence punishable under Section 341, IPC, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 week. The accused-appellant was also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Finally, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

3. The factual matrix as advanced by the prosecution, necessary for the disposal of this case is that all the accused persons viz. A1 to A5 including accused-appellant being A3, used to eve tease PW-2, aged 26 years old, who was the wife of the deceased. PW-2 informed her husband about the same and the deceased reprimanded the accused persons. However, on 28.06.2003, at about 7.30 p.m. when the deceased’s father (PW-1), PW-2 and the deceased were nearing the bus stop on their way to the church, PW-2 was once again eve teased by the accused persons in front of the deceased. As a result, a quarrel took place, wherein the accused persons, including the accused-appellant, warned the deceased by giving him death threats.

4. The main incident took place at about 09.30 p.m. on the same day, when the deceased, his father (PW-1) and wife (PW-2), were returning to their house. On their way towards the Idinthakarai bus stop, they found all the accused persons standing near the bus stop. The deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were stopped and attacked by the accused persons. A1 was armed with a knife, while all other accused, including the accused-appellant herein were armed with aruvals. A1 scolded the deceased and stabbed him in his stomach. The deceased could not bear the attack and fell down. When, PW-1 tried to lift the deceased, he was attacked by the accused-appellant with an aruval on the left side of his head. On an alarm being raised by PW-1 and PW-2, the accused persons fled from the scene. The deceased was immediately taken to his house, wherein he breathed his last.

5. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 324, 341, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC against the accused-appellant along with other accused persons. After examining the witnesses and material available on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner detailed above. Subsequently, the criminal appeal filed before the High Court stood partly allowed, as discussed a