Question 1?

Key Points: - The appellant’s conviction under IPC sections 302/34 based on common intention and exhortation to kill was upheld; the evidence of three eye-witnesses, though related, was held credible and consistent regarding presence, exhortation, and the act of killing (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The absence of a ballistic expert report or weapon recovery does not by itself render the eyewitness testimony unreliable or defeat conviction under Section 34; appellate court discussed governing precedents on the necessity (or not) of ballistic evidence in such cases (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 34 does not create a separate offense but provides vicarious liability for acts done in pursuance of common intention; existence of prior concert or on-the-spot development of common intent may suffice for conviction, with pre-arranged plan not always necessary (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The appellant’s role as the exhorter, his presence at the scene, and the nature of the exhortation were found to establish common intention and his liability; delay in FIR and the clan/relatives status of witnesses were considered not fatal to the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Higher Courts cited: Mohd. Rojali; Dalip Singh; Virendra Singh; Dhanpal v. State (NCT of Delhi); Sandeep v. State of Haryana; and others to articulate when ballistic evidence is essential versus when direct eyewitness testimony suffices (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Conclusion: No merit in the appeal; conviction under Sections 302/34 upheld; sentences remain; guidelines on examination of ballistic evidence and common intention reiterated (!) .

Question 1?