SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 208

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
Shailendra and others - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 460 of 1989
Decided On : 08-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Apul Misra, P N Misrha
For the Respondent: SC

The Court affirmed that for conviction under Section 34 IPC, both common intention and premeditation must be proven, which were established beyond doubt in this case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 307 - Criminal Appeal - Conviction of accused-appellants for murder and attempted murder; trial court's findings supported by sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports - Appeal filed by surviving appellant after death of co-accused abated - No evidence of absence of common intention or premeditation established - Denial by appellant regarding participation in crime rejected as unsubstantiated. (Paras 1-36)

(B) Common Intention - Essential element for conviction under Section 34 IPC is the presence of a common intention and participation in the commission of an act - Evidence supports premeditation and active participation of all accused in the alleged crime. (Paras 26-30)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a conviction for murder after the accused, during a Teeka ceremony, attacked the deceased, Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey, with firearms and explosives, leading to his death and injuries to others. Eyewitnesses confirmed the premeditated nature of the attack. (Paras 2-24)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was upheld based on corroborated evidence of eyewitnesses, supporting physical evidence, and medical testimony confirming the violent nature of the attack. (Paras 30-33)

Issues: The court addressed the issues of common intention, pre-planning, and the sufficiency of evidence for the conviction of the surviving appellant. (Paras 26-30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessary elements of premeditation and common intention in criminal liability under Section 34IPC, and upheld the trial court's conviction despite the appeal's claims of non-participation. (Paras 30-34)

Result: Appeal rejected; conviction and sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. abatement of appeal for certain appellants. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution established the factual background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. surviving appellant’s defense on lack of common intention. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. credibility of eyewitnesses and their testimonies. (Para 14 , 16 , 18)
5. corroboration of evidence through medical reports. (Para 20 , 21 , 25)
6. legal principles on common intention under section 34. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
7. trial court's conclusion on participation established. (Para 29 , 31 , 33)
8. final ruling and directives post-appeal. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. In light of the office report dated 24.11.2025, the appeal is declared to have abated so far as it concerns accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu and Arvind Kumar. The appeal survives for adjudication only in respect of appellant No. 3, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.1989 passed by the Special Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 383 of 1987 (State versus Shailendra alias Rannu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 1987, under Section 302/307 IPC, Police Station- Powayan, District- Shahjahanpur. By the impugned judgment and order, the Special Judge, Shahjahanpur convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Sections 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100 each, and in default of payment, a further three months' rigorous imprisonment. The Special Judge, Shahjahanpur also convicted the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Section 307/34 IPC, and the accused-appellant Arvind Kumar under Section 307 IPC, sentencing each of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, with a further three months' rigorous imprisonment in default. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of a written report (Ex.Ka.1) dated 11.06.1987, submitted by the informant Ishwar Chandra (PW-1), an FIR dated 11.06.1987 (Ex.Ka.5) was registered against the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra Kumar alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Section 302/307 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that accused Arvind Kumar alias Lalla, Munmun, and Shailendra alias Rannu were known to the informant Ishwar Chandra prior to the incident. All the accused lived nearby and were familiar with the deceased, Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey, who was the uncle of the informant (PW-1). On 11.06.1987, during the Teeka ceremony of Pawan Kumar Pandey at Mohalla Kasbhara, P.S. Powayan, a quarrel took place between accused Shailendra alias Rannu and Balesh. After some time, Shailendra returned along with co-accused Arvind Kumar alias Lalla and Munmun, all were armed with country-made pistols and hand bombs. When the deceased Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey, uncle of the informant Ishwar Chandra, objected to their misconduct, accused Lalla fired at him from close range, as a result of which, he died at the spot. The accused also threw hand bombs. The accused further fired at Balesh and Anil and threw another bomb, resulting in injuries to guests Rajiv, Rajneesh and Krishnanand. Somehow, Balesh and Anil escaped. The incident occurred around 10:45 p.m. in the presence of the informant and others under adequate electric lighting. An unknown caller informed the police, who reached the spot immediately.

4. Investigating Officer Mahesh Narayan Singh (PW-6) took charge of the investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) collected various incriminating materials and objects from the scene of the incident, including empty cartridges, bullets, tikli, pieces of glass, slippers, etc., and prepared Exhibit Ka-2. He further sent the collected incriminating m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top