In Brief
Two appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by lower courts based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite common intention beyond reasonable doubt. The sole eye-witness was a stock witness whose credibility was doubtful and who contradicted the prosecution case. The courts improperly drew adverse inferences from the appellants' non-cooperation in identification parades, despite witnesses already being exposed to the accused during police custody. The Court held that Section 34 IPC requires substantial, concrete and definite evidence to prove constructive liability, and the prosecution bore the burden of proof. The appeals were allowed and convictions set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.