He told his friends to keep an eye on the men who had arrived, and within an hour one of them was bleeding to death at the gate

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad dismissed three appeals, held that restraining those who came to help establishes common intention, and rejected an alibi contradicted by the marriage card.

The fardbeyan was recorded at 12.30 a.m. on 9 May 2016 at the Bokaro General Hospital, in a ward, at a bed, from an informant who had himself been stabbed. He said that on the evening of 8 May 2016 he and his friends had gone at about 7 p.m. to a party for the fiftieth wedding anniversary of a friend's parents at Buddha Vihar. At about 9.50 p.m. he saw the principal accused and his friends roaming about the party, and told two of his own friends to keep vigil on them.

Those two reached the gate of Buddha Vihar, keeping watch; the informant followed and saw the principal accused entangled with both of them. The accused took out a knife and stabbed them. When the informant ran to save them he was stabbed too, and the accused fled westwards. One of the two men stabbed at the gate died. An FIR was registered on the fardbeyan under Sections 307, 302, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the principal accused and two unknown persons.

The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fast Track Court, Bokaro, convicted three men by judgment of 31 March 2018 and sentenced them on 4 April 2018. On 13 October 2026 a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed all three appeals.

Thirteen grounds

The appeals were argued on an unusually long list of objections, which between them cover most of what can be said against a conviction built on eyewitnesses: that no test identification parade had been held; that the weapon was never recovered and no incriminating article was seized from the appellants; that the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained; that no motive had been brought on record; that no witness could prove the appellants went to the party intending to kill, the occurrence having allegedly taken place when the informant and his friends intervened; that the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other and were neither reliable nor trustworthy; that a confessional statement before the police has no evidentiary value; that identification of the appellant was doubtful and there was no cogent evidence of shared common intention; that the prosecution case involved three places of occurrence, none established by the witnesses; that no witness said that one of the appellants had assaulted the deceased or injured anyone; and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr Jitendra S. Singh and Mr A.K. Kashyap appeared as senior advocates for the appellants in two of the three appeals. The accused had denied the evidence and their complicity under Section 313 and said they had been falsely implicated.

How common intention was inferred

The Court's answer on the central question — Section 34 — was built from the sequence rather than from any declaration of intent. It began from the settled proposition that what is essential to Section 34 is common intention to commit the crime actually committed.

From the circumstances it found the following. The accused persons had arrived together at the marriage anniversary celebration at Buddha Vihar. The informant had already cautioned his companions to remain vigilant about the principal accused and his associates. Immediately thereafter, as soon as the deceased approached the principal accused, the latter drew a sharp-edged weapon — a knife or dagger — and repeatedly assaulted him on the abdomen, causing him to collapse. In the meantime, the associates of the principal accused actively restrained and threatened those who attempted to intervene or render aid to the deceased, thereby facilitating the assault and enabling the principal accused to escape.

That last element is what carried the two associates. It is not an allegation that they struck anyone; it is that they held off the people who would have. Applying the guiding principle in Section 34, the Court held that all three appellants, acting in furtherance of their common intention, caused the murder of the deceased and also caused injuries to three other witnesses, including the informant. The charge under Sections 302 and 34 was held proved beyond all reasonable doubt against each of them.

The marriage card

One appellant had raised a plea of alibi, asserting that he was engaged in the marriage of his cousin sister between 8 and 10 May 2016. The trial court had considered the marriage card and the oral evidence and found that the marriage was solemnised on 9 May 2016 and not on 8 May, the date of the occurrence. On that finding the defence evidence did not support the plea. The High Court found no infirmity in the conclusion and held it warranted no interference.

The order, and what follows from it

The impugned judgment of conviction dated 31 March 2018 and the order of sentence dated 4 April 2018 required no interference and were sustained and upheld. The appeals were dismissed.

There was a practical consequence for two of the three appellants, who had been released during the pendency of the appeals on suspension of sentence. Their bail bonds were cancelled and they were directed to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentences passed against them. The Court added that if they do not surrender, the trial court will take endeavours for securing their custody to serve out the sentences inflicted. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of and the lower court records directed to be sent back forthwith along with a copy of the judgment.