Shaheed and Others v. State, 2026

The prosecution alleged that the murder was committed because the deceased had an illicit relationship with the sister of the main accused, Shaheed.

According to the FIR, Shaheed fired the fatal shot at the deceased.

It was alleged that Laddan (appellant) and Rahmat fired shots in the air to terrorize witnesses before fleeing.

In 1990, the Trial Court convicted Shaheed under Section 302 IPC, while Laddan and Rahmat were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

During the pendency of the appeal, Shaheed and Rahmat died, leaving only Laddan's appeal for consideration.

Laddan argued that he had no connection with Shaheed and was falsely implicated merely because he was known in the locality.

The Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that only one fired bullet was recovered from the scene and no pellets, cartridges, or other evidence supported the allegation of aerial firing by Laddan.

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal.

The Court held that Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of prior concert and a pre-arranged plan among the accused.

It observed that the prosecution failed to establish any meeting of minds between Laddan and the main accused.

The Court found no evidence that Laddan shared any common intention to commit the murder.

The Court relied upon the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who confirmed that only one bullet was recovered from the crime scene.

The absence of pellets, cartridges, or other physical evidence contradicted the prosecution's allegation that Laddan fired shots in the air.

The Court held that mere presence at the scene or suspicion cannot establish criminal liability under Section 34 IPC.

It observed that the Trial Court convicted Laddan without examining the essential legal requirements for invoking Section 34 IPC.

Relying upon Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, the Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, can never replace legal proof.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment reaffirms that Section 34 IPC does not create a separate offence but fixes joint liability only when common intention is clearly proved.

The Court correctly emphasized that common intention cannot be presumed merely from presence at the scene.

The decision strengthens the principle that criminal liability must rest upon legally admissible evidence rather than conjecture or suspicion.

The Court highlighted the importance of corroborative forensic and physical evidence in supporting eyewitness testimony.

The judgment reiterates that courts must record a definite finding regarding prior concert before applying Section 34 IPC.

It reinforces the principle that prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving constructive criminal liability.

The ruling serves as an important precedent limiting the indiscriminate application of Section 34 IPC where evidence of common intention is lacking.