In Brief
The appellant was convicted of murder (Sections 302 and 34, IPC) for exhorting a co-accused to shoot the deceased. The defence challenged the credibility of related eyewitnesses, the delay in filing the FIR, the failure to recover the weapon, and whether exhortation alone established common intention. The Court upheld the conviction, holding that related witnesses are not inherently 'interested'; the three witnesses were consistent about the appellant's role and exhortation at the scene. The absence of the murder weapon and ballistic expert opinion does not impeach credible eyewitness testimony. Common intention under Section 34 requires no elaborate pre-plan but only assent by words or actions. The appellant's exhortation ('the enemy has been found') immediately before the fatal shot proved his common intention with the shooter. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.