A conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 requires proof of shared common intention and active participation. Mere presence at the scene, without evidence of specific overt acts, is insufficient to establish culpability, particularly when prosecution testimony is found to be unreliable.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 08.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 503 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2500/- each.

3. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that altogether six accused persons were put under trial and held guilty. The present appeal was also filed by all the six convicts, out of them, appellant no. 1 namely, Lal Mohan Singh, Son of Charitar Singh, appellant no. 4 namely, Charitar Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh and appellant no. 6 namely, Kreshan Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh have died and their appeal have been abated vide order dated 24.04.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of appellants namely, Chandramani Singh, Son of Late Charitar Singh, Chhotan Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh and Mukhlal Singh, Son of Krishan Singh.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 23.06.1988, at about 9:00 PM, informant’s son Ayodhya Singh was sleeping and his father Ram Badan Singh (informant) was sitting in the Varandah outside of the house. The informant’s wife Fulmatia Devi (P.W.-2), daughter-in-law namely, Ratni Devi (P.W.-5) and younger son namely, Shiv Kumar Singh (P.W.-4) were inside the house and informant has not taken dinner. The main door of the house was open, in the meantime, informant heard esjs yM+dk dks idM+ dj dkgs ys ^^tk jgs gks^^. Thereafter, informant saw that his son Ayodhya was being assaulted and brought outside by the accused persons and his wife, daughter-in-law and younger son were raising alarm and shouting. The informant protested and asked the accused persons about the matter then Kreshan Singh replied that they are taking away his son to Ranicheri Tola to finally settle some dispute. The informant assumed that the accused persons will leave his son after some time, therefore, he took dinner, but his son did not return then informant along with his wife went to the house of accused persons and saw that his son was lying in the courtyard of accused Charitar Singh in injured condition. His son asked water. The informant gave water to him, but in the meantime, informant’s son died. He has further alleged that Kreshan Singh admitted to have killed his son.

5. On the basis of above information, FIR being Ranka P.S. Case No. 33 of 1988 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 302 of the I.P.C.

6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against all the six accused persons namely, Lal Mohan Singh, Chandramani Singh, Chhotan Singh, Charitar Singh, Mukhlal Singh and Kreshan Singh for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 342 and 302 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 503 o