Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 512
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sanjay Singh – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 2013
Decided On : 08-05-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. V.V.M.B.N.S. Pattabhiram, D.A.G. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia Ga, Adv. Mr. Bittu Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Common intention is essentially a psychological fact and must be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, but such inference must be based on credible material and not on conjecture or assumption.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Common intention – Section 34 does not create substantive offence, but embodies principle of joint liability, and its application necessarily requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds, which may be formed even at spur of moment, but must nonetheless be clearly discernible from material on record – Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds – Though such intention may develop on the spot, there must be clear evidence to indicate meeting of minds and participation in furtherance thereof – Common intention is essentially a psychological fact and must be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, but such inference must be based on credible material and not on conjecture or assumption. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Prosecution's evidence, when examined in its entirety, does not disclose any material from which common intention can be safely inferred – Role attributed to Appellant is not that of having caused fatal injury to deceased – Evidence of prosecution witnesses does not consistently or unequivocally establish that Appellant fired at deceased or that any injury caused by him resulted in death of deceased – Appellant had not reached place of occurrence along with principal accused – Evidence indicates that he arrived at the spot subsequent to commencement and after incident of shot having being fired and hit deceased at instance of co-accused had occurred – Appellant had approached site of occurrence from a different direction – This circumstance, when read with absence of any other evidence suggesting prior concert, clearly negates existence of a pre-arranged plan – Dying declaration, though admissible and relevant, primarily establishes presence of Appellant at scene of occurrence – However, same does not attribute to Appellant act of causing injury much less fatal injury to deceased – Evidence on record falls short of establishing either prior meeting of minds or any active participation on part of Appellant in infliction of fatal injury – There is no material to show that Appellant facilitated, encouraged, or aided principal accused in commission of fatal act – Mere presence cannot be elevated to proof of common intention – At the same time, presence of Appellant at the scene, coupled with fact that he was armed with a firearm, cannot be ignored and does indicate a degree of involvement in the occurrence – Conviction of Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is liable to be set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 28 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Conviction of Appellant under Section 302 IPC rests upon applicability and aid of Section 34 of IPC. The essential question, which arises is, whether prosecution has been able to establish that Appellant shared a common intention with principal accused to commit murder of deceased and that the act resulting in death was done in furtherance of such common intention.
Findings of Court:
Appellant was enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal. In view of present judgment and having regard to the period of custody already undergone by Appellant, he shall not be required to surrender, provided he is not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Key Points: - The court held that common intention under Section 34 IPC is a psychological fact inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, requiring credible material (Paras 14-16, p_16, p_17). - The prosecution failed to establish common intention; the appellant’s presence armed with a firearm did not prove pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds (Paras 21-23, 25, 27; p_21, p_22, p_25, p_27). - The conviction under 302 read with 34 IPC is set aside and substituted with conviction under 307 IPC; sentence limited to period already undergone due to ends of justice (Paras 35-39; p_35, p_36, p_37, p_39).
How to determine common intention under Section 34 IPC from conduct and surrounding circumstances?
What is the appropriate conviction and sentence when common intention is not established but involvement at the scene is proven?
What is the correct modification of conviction and sentence when a murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable?
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. In the present appeal, the prosecution case has its genesis in an incident alleged to have occurred on 12.05.1999 at about 9:30 p.m. in village Sarsi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam. On the same night, at about 10:45 p.m., a First Information Report bearing No. 93 of 1999 came to be lodged by Balwant Singh s/o Rai Singh, who is stated to be the brother of the injured Deshpal Singh. In the said report, allegations were made against several persons, including the present Appellant, to the effect that they had assaulted the injured by use of firearms and other weapons. On the basis of the said report, offences under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [For short, “IPC”], along with relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 came to be registered.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that immediately after the occurrence, the injured Deshpal Singh was taken for medical treatment. On the same night, i.e., 12.05.1999, at about 10:45 p.m., a statement of the injured, treated as a dying declaration, was recorded by the attending medical officer. The condition of the injured, however, deteriorated and despite medical intervention, he succumbed to his injuries in the early hours of 13.05.1999 at about 5:40 a.m. Upon receipt of information regarding his death, the offence came to be altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC.
3. The investigation was thereafter carried out in the usual course. Statements of witnesses were recorded, alleged weapons were seized, and documentary material, including medical papers and post-mortem report was collected. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons, including the present Appellant, for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and allied provisions. The case was committed to the Court of Session and registered as Sessions Case No. 130 of 1999 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam.
4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses, including the complainant, persons projected as eyewitnesses, the doctor who recorded the statement of the injured, and the investigating officer. Documentary evidence such as the First Information Report, the alleged dying declaration, post-mortem report and seizure memos were also brought on record. The defence of the Appellant was one of denial, and it was contended that he had been falsely implicated and that no specific role had been attributed to him in the commission of the offence.
5. By judgment dated 11.07.2001, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court held that the accused persons had acted in furtherance of their common intention and that the death of Deshpal Singh was the result of the acts committed by them. On that basis, the Appellant, along with co-accused Mahendrapal Singh, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine in Sessions Case No. 130 of 1999 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, while the remaining five co-accused were acquitted of the charges.
6. The Appellant, along with the said co-accused Mahendrapal Singh, carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore by filing Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2001. The High Court, by its judgment dated 08.03.2011, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. A reading of the impugned judgment would indicate that the High Court concurred with the conclusions of the Trial Court and did not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant, along with the co-accused Mahendrapal Singh, preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6799 of 2011 before this Court. On 26.08.2011, at the stage of consideration of the said peti
