The court clarified the distinction between common intention and common object under IPC, ruling insufficient evidence for shared intention led to a modification of conviction from murder to lesser charges.

1. Both the criminal appeals are being decided by the common judgment as all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for murdering Manish and attempting to murder Rupesh.
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
Appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.278/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:-
Appellant-Depu alias Depak s/o Bherulal
CONVICTION SENTENCE Section Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment instead of fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S I. 307/34 IPC 7 Years Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I Both the sentence shall run concurrently. Appellant- Jogu alias Jogi alias Yogesh S/o Parmanand CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment instead of fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I. 307/34 IPC 10 Years Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I Both the sentence shall run concurrently. Appellant- Ashok S/o Jagdish CONVICTION SENTENCE
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment instead of fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I. 307/34 IPC 10 Years Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I Both the sentence shall run concurrently. Appellant- Vishal S/o Vijay Rathore CONVICTION SENTENCE Section Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment instead of fine 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I. 307/34 IPC 7 Years Rs.10,000/- 6 Months S.I Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: -
(a) As per the prosecution story, on 06.08.2007 near about 07:00 p.m., the complainant Ashish was going to paan shop from his house. He found that the accused persons were quarrelling with Rupesh (the injured) and Manish (the deceased). Jogu Mali, Depu Meena, and Ajay Rathore were carrying a knife and assaulting Rupesh. His brother Manish came forward to save Rupesh, Ashok threatened Manish, and then Manish ran away from there. Ashok inflicted the injury to Manish by means of a knife. Accused Jagdish and Depak have instigated Ashok that Manish used to interfere with their business, lets finish him today. Ravi was carrying a stick. All accused persons have assaulted Manish and Rupesh. The incident was witnessed by localites. Manish and Rupesh were taken to hospital by Ashish and Sanjay, on the day Manish died.
(b) Information was given to the police on which Dehati Nalish was registered, followed by an FIR No.180/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 119 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The investigation was set into motion, a spot map was drawn, and blood stain soil, mobile and slippers were seized from the spot. Lash Panchanama of Manish was prepared, thereafter postmortem was carried out. All accused were arrested and on their disclosure arms were recovered. Upon completion of the investigation, police filed a charge sheet under Sections 302, 307, 144, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act against Ravi, Depu alias Depak, Jogu alias Jogi alias Yogesh, Deepak, Jagdish, Ashok and Vishal. The trial was committed to the Sessions Court.

3. Charges were framed against the appellants, which they denied and pleaded for trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses from PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked various documents. In defence, the appellant examined four witnesses.

4. After evaluating the evidence that came on record, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Ravi, Deepak s/o Jagdish, Jagdish from all the charges and convicted the appellants namely Depu alia