In Brief
A political activist was murdered after a meeting was called to remove a former Mayor. Four accused, including respondent No. 2, arrived together in a car, with one identifying the deceased to respondent No. 2. While another accused fired the fatal shot, respondent No. 2 and a co-accused exhorted violence and provided cover. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302/34 IPC. The High Court acquitted respondent No. 2, holding mere presence and absence of weapons were insufficient for common intention. The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal, holding that common intention can be inferred from coordinated conduct, pre-planned assembly, identification of the victim, exhortation, and coordinated escape, without requiring overt acts or weapons possession from each accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.