Advocates appeared:
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.

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The Court held that Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds for common intention; presence at the scene alone is not sufficient. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court replaced conviction under 302 read with 34 IPC with conviction under 307 IPC, noting lack of proven common intention but presence with a firearm justifies attempt to cause death. (!) (!) - The appellant’s early release considerations: substantial custody undergone and ends of justice by limiting sentence to period already undergone; bail status maintained. (!) (!) (!) - The dying declaration and PW-6 testimony do not attribute fatal injury to the appellant; absence of prior concert challenges Section 34 applicability. (!) (!) (!) - The evidence shows appellant arrived after the start of incident, approached from a different direction, negating pre-arranged plan. (!) - Legal principle cited: common intention implies prior concert, demonstrated by credible material; mere presence cannot establish Section 34. (!) (!) - Historical/legal precedents invoked: Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor; Pandurang; Munni Lal; and cited 2022-2024 SCC cases. (!) (!) (!) - The dying declaration admissible but not conclusive of fatal act by appellant; no direct proof he fired. (!) - The prosecution’s entire case re-evaluated; conviction under 302/34 set aside; replaced with 307 and sentence limited to time already served. (!) (!) - The appeal is partly allowed. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?