The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that in the absence of clear evidence of a common intention or specific overt acts, conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC is not sustainable. This judgment reaffirms established principles, limiting the scope of joint liability in criminal cases, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/509/2008 of MAHESH KUMAR SAO and ORS. Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010000842008 |
| Date of Registration | 22-05-2008 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Bench – HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY |
| Precedent Value | Binding for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled law from Supreme Court, applies it to facts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Attempt to Murder, Joint Liability) |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere general allegations without specific overt acts suffice to convict under Sections 307/34 IPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that general statements without clear attribution of specific overt acts or common intention to the accused are insufficient to attract Section 34 IPC liability in attempt to murder cases. The Court found the prosecution evidence against particular appellants (Vidhan and Indivar) lacking, as the complainant ascribed the specific active role only to Mahesh and the juvenile. The Court clarified that only those who perform overt acts or for whom clear common intention is proven can be held jointly liable. In the absence of such proof vis-à-vis Vidhan and Indivar, their conviction was unsustainable under Sections 307/34 and 506-B IPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The case stemmed from an incident on 01.07.2004, where accused allegedly assaulted Abhishek Singh (PW-7) with sharp weapons, causing serious injury. FIR was registered, chargesheet filed for Sections 307, 506 and 34 IPC. The trial court convicted all, but on appeal, the High Court found that, except for Mahesh and the juvenile (who were specifically named as assailants), there was no concrete evidence against Vidhan and Indivar. Most prosecution witnesses turned hostile; medical reports confirmed grievous injuries, but overt acts by all were not established. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, may be cited before Supreme Court for similar factual scenarios |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clearly holds that mere presence or general allegations are insufficient for attracting joint liability under Section 34 IPC in serious offences like attempt to murder—specific overt acts or clear common intention must be established.
- Reiterates and applies well-established principles regarding the distinction between principal offenders and persons with general involvement.
- Lack of evidence specifying the participation of each accused may result in acquittal, even in serious offences.
- Lawyers should ensure that in cases alleging common intention, prosecution evidence must specifically attribute participation, not just a general role.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court extensively reviewed the Supreme Court’s holdings on Sections 307 and 34 IPC, with particular reliance on Shoyeb Raja, Kanha @ Omprakash, Chhota Ahirwar, and Krishnamurthy.
- It was reiterated that conviction for attempt to murder does not require that injuries be sufficient to cause death, but the intention and overt act must be clearly proven.
- Section 34 IPC’s application necessitates proof of a shared common intention and at least some overt participation in the act.
- Upon examination of the evidence, the Court found only general allegations against some appellants (Vidhan and Indivar), with no clear attribution of harmful acts.
- The medical evidence only connected specific injuries to Mahesh and the juvenile.
- The absence of specific allegations and failure to establish common intention led the Court to set aside the conviction of Vidhan and Indivar.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No substantive or specific allegation against the appellant Vidhan; he was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated later.
- Most prosecution witnesses turned hostile, leading to contradictions and omissions.
- For appellant Indivar, sought reduction of sentence on grounds of prolonged trial, time already spent in custody, and the death of co-accused Mahesh.
- Cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments in support.
Respondent-State and Objector
- Argued that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
- Supported the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and conviction of appellants.
Factual Background
The case originated from an incident on 1 July 2004 in Bhilai, where the complainant was assaulted by multiple accused with sharp weapons, resulting in serious injuries. FIR was registered under Sections 307, 506, and 34 IPC. At trial, although serious injuries were documented, the evidence primarily established the active role of Mahesh and a juvenile. Other accused faced only general allegations, and several important prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The trial court convicted all, but on appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence with reference to the required ingredients for joint liability.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Section 307 IPC, noting that an attempt to murder conviction does not require injuries actually capable of causing death, but demands proof of intention and an overt act.
- Section 34 IPC was examined, emphasizing liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention, which requires clear demonstration of shared intent and participation.
- The judgment also referred briefly to compliance requirements under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023 regarding appeal bonds.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms settled law on Sections 307 and 34 IPC, applying well-established principles to the facts.