Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 319

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANJIV KUMAR, J.
Gopi Singh And Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 255 of 1983
Decided On : 16-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.B.Paul, Shiv Sharan Tripathi, Sumit Pandey
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan; mere individual actions by co-accused do not suffice for joint liability in attempted murder.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 and 323 - Arms Act - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for sections 307 IPC (attempted murder) and 323 IPC (causing simple injuries) - Acquittal on certain charges due to lack of common intention - Weighing of direct evidence and witness credibility emphasized. (Paras 20, 24, 46)

(B) Common intention - Requirements of Section 34 IPC - Necessity of pre-arranged plan and participation established for vicarious liability - Appellants' individual acts not constituting a collective criminal intention leading to attempted murder, leading to acquittal on that charge. (Paras 29, 32, 43)

Facts of the case:
A police party was attacked when seeking to mediate a village dispute; stone-throwing and gunfire ensued, with injuries to officers. Appellant Mihi Lal, armed with a pistol, fired but caused no injury; he was captured. (Paras 3, 20, 28)

Findings of Court:
The surviving appellant's conviction under Section 323 IPC affirmed due to provable participation; Section 307 IPC charge quashed as no shared intention was established. (Paras 45, 46)

Issues: Whether the appellants acted with a common intention under Section 34 IPC to commit murder. (Paras 29, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere agitation and reaction to provocation did not constitute common intention required for liability; individual actions do not imply shared culpability. (Paras 32, 34, 43)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction of surviving appellant under Section 323 IPC maintained, sentenced to time served.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case leading to the fir. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. appeal statements and procedural status. (Para 18)
3. court's assessment of evidence's credibility. (Para 19 , 24 , 26 , 28)
4. interpretation of common intention under section 34. (Para 32 , 34)
5. final ruling on appeal and sentencing. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the accused/appellants, to wit, Gopi Singh, Ganga Sahay, Kishan Prasad and Mihi Lal, against common judgment and order dated 01.02.1983 passed by Shri S.K. Agnihotri, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 499 of 1981 State of U.P. Vs. Gopi Singh and 2 Others and Sessions Trial No. 83 of 1982 State of U.P. Vs. Mihi Lal, arising out of same Case Crime No.499 of 1982, Police Station- Barla, District- Aligarh.

2. By the impugned judgment and order appellant- Mihi Lal was sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.; Appellants Gopi Singh, Ganga Sahay and Kishan Prasad were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with 34 IPC and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC; appellant Mihi Lal was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years’ for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC; all the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC as well as Section- 332 read with 34 IPC. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the first informant Sub Inspector Jai Prakash of Police Station- Barla, District- Aligarh lodged an FIR on 26.12.1980 at 05:30 p.m. at Police Station- Barla, District- Aligarh stating therein that today i.e. 26.12.1980 at about 03:10 p.m., S.I. Jai Prakash along with Constables Tej Singh and Yad Ram Singh reached village- Mudhail to conduct an inquiry with regard to an application given by Tej Singh s/o Man Singh r/o Village Mudhail. He reached at the door of Tej Singh and summoned both the parties and asked them to get the matter settled between them or approach the court for redressal of their grievance. Thereupon, appellants Gopi singh, S/o Bhudev Singh; Ganga Sahay son of Bhudev, Kishan Prasad son of Ganga Sahay, Mihi Lal (nephew of Gopi Singh) son of Chhokhe Lal, got agitated and started saying that the police has no concern with their matter. The villagers, however, said that the police is giving them correct advise and they should settle their dispute amicably, thereupon the appellants got up on their pedestal (chabutra) and at once started throwing stones and bricks over the police party to cause them harm. Meanwhile, Mihi Lal son of Chhokhe Lal, whipped out his country- made pistol from his pocket and fired at the police party to which they escaped unhurt. Constables Tej Singh and Yad Ram Singh sustained injuries from bricks and stones thrown upon them. With the help of Karan Singh, Dev Karan Singh, Pokhpal, Tirkha residents of Mudhail, the police party captured appellant- Mihi Lal at the spot at 03:30 p.m. He was carrying a country-made pistol, 12 bore and a live cartridge 12 bore. There was an empty cartridge found in the barrel of the pistol. The pistol and cartridges were sealed at the spot and its fard baramadagi was prepared. Thereafter, appellant Mihi Lal was taken to the police station and on the basis of fard baramadagi an FIR under Case Crime No.278 of 1980, under Sections- 332, 336, 307 and 353 IPC and Case Crime No.279 of 1980 under Section- 25 Arms Act was registered against the appellants.

4. The investigation was entrusted to