The High Court of Judicature at Patna has acquitted a man convicted of attempt to murder, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove he shared a "common intention" with his co-accused. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha overturned the 2015 conviction of Nandu Thakur, finding that the evidence presented during the trial indicated only a "similar intention" rather than the requisite joint criminal purpose required under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The ruling serves as a significant clarification on the standards of evidence necessary to establish constructive liability in cases involving multiple suspects.

The legal proceedings stemmed from an incident on June 7, 2001, involving a dispute between the informant, Shambhu Mahto, and the accused individuals, Nandu Thakur and Fanindra Thakur. According to the prosecution, the informant was intercepted while returning from his shop when Nandu Thakur allegedly restrained him from behind, facilitating a shooting by Fanindra Thakur. The bullet struck the informant in the right thigh. While the trial court initially sentenced the appellant to three years of rigorous imprisonment for attempt to murder under Section 307/34 and one month for wrongful restraint under Section 341, the High Court determined that the evidence did not support these findings.

One of the primary factors influencing the acquittal was the prosecution’s failure to establish a "pre-arranged plan" or a spontaneous meeting of minds between the accused. During the appeal, the defense argued that the specific act of holding the victim did not automatically equate to a shared intention to commit murder. Justice Jha noted that the distinction between similar intention and common intention is a foundational requirement of criminal law. He observed that while both men may have harbored individual motives or hostilities, the prosecution provided no reliable evidence that the appellant actively participated in the violent act with the knowledge or intent necessary to support a charge of attempted murder.

Discrepancies in Prosecution Evidence The High Court’s decision was further bolstered by inconsistencies in the testimony provided by prosecution witnesses. While multiple witnesses corroborated the fact that an altercation occurred and that the informant sustained a gunshot injury, their accounts regarding the sequence of events and the specific roles played by the accused varied significantly. Furthermore, the court highlighted the impact of the Investigating Officer (IO) not being examined during the trial.

In its analysis, the bench emphasized that while the non-examination of an IO does not always result in an automatic acquittal, it became a critical vulnerability in this case because it denied the defense a fair opportunity to challenge material contradictions. Justice Jha stated, “The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 is not direct evidence of the actual assault, P.Ws. 5 and 7 have not supported the prosecution case, and the Investigating Officer has not been examined.”

The court also stressed that the medical evidence, while confirming the informant’s gunshot wounds, served only to establish that an injury occurred rather than proving the intent of the accused. The judgment clarified that simple injuries, by themselves, do not rule out the applicability of Section 307 IPC, but the prosecution must still prove the presence of the specific intention or knowledge required by the statute.

Clarifying the Threshold of Section 34 IPC The ruling underscored that Section 34 IPC is not a tool for broad attribution of guilt. Justice Jha pointed out that "mere presence at the place of occurrence cannot be treated as proof of common intention and that the prosecution must establish, from the evidence and surrounding circumstances, that the accused shared the common intention and acted in furtherance thereof."

This distinction between "similar intention"—where individuals might independently act in a parallel manner—and "common intention"—where there is a shared, unified goal—is critical in Indian criminal jurisprudence. By failing to prove that Nandu Thakur’s physical actions were meant to facilitate a lethal outcome, the state was unable to satisfy the burden of proof required to sustain a conviction under the charges of attempt to murder.

Conclusion of Proceedings Given the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the appellant’s state of mind and his role in the alleged crime, the court held that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The judgment set aside the 2015 conviction and order of sentence issued by the Additional Sessions Judge-2nd, Muzaffarpur, effectively ending the long-standing legal battle.

Following the acquittal, the court ordered that Nandu Thakur be discharged from the liabilities of his bonds and sureties, subject to the standard provisions under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Any fines previously deposited by the appellant are to be returned. This final disposition marks the closure of a case that highlights the stringent evidentiary requirements for proving constructive liability and the necessity for the prosecution to provide a cohesive narrative that directly links an accused’s specific actions to the criminal intent of an entire group. With the matter now resolved, the judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts regarding the careful application of Section 34 IPC when evaluating the roles of individual participants in criminal incidents.