Murder Conviction Under Section 34 IPC Set Aside Due to Lack of Common Intention, Conviction Substituted Under Section 307 IPC for Attempted Murder

Case Name: Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 INSC 467

Date of Judgment/Order: 8 May 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 34 IPC requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds between the accused, which must be clear from the material on record. In this case, while the appellant was present at the scene of the crime, there was no evidence showing that he had prior knowledge of the murder or that he had an active role in the fatal act. The Court found that the appellant’s presence at the scene, armed with a firearm, was insufficient to establish common intention. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC was set aside and replaced with a conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).

Summary: The case arose from a fatal shooting incident on 12 May 1999, in which the deceased, Deshpal Singh, was assaulted by multiple persons, including the appellant, using firearms. The appellant was initially convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC by the Trial Court and the High Court. The evidence suggested that the appellant was present at the scene, but the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had inflicted the fatal injury or that he shared a common intention with the principal accused. The appellant’s defense argued that he had no role in the death and was merely present during the incident, arriving after the fatal shot was fired. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that common intention was not proven, as there was no prior meeting of minds or active participation in the fatal act. The Court therefore substituted the conviction under Section 302 IPC with a conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. The Court further considered the appellant’s period of incarceration, which exceeded nine years, and limited the sentence to the period already undergone, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The appellant, having been out on bail during the pendency of the appeal, was not required to surrender, provided he was not needed in any other case. The appeal was partly allowed with the modified sentence.