Related eyewitness evidence and common intention can sustain a murder conviction when the testimony is natural, consistent, and trustworthy.

Related eyewitness testimony is not to be rejected merely because the witnesses are related or because their statements were earlier recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; such evidence may be relied on if it is otherwise natural, consistent, and trustworthy. The document notes that common intention under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may be inferred from the totality of circumstances, including the manner of arrival, repeated conduct at the scene, participation in restraining the victim, and subsequent departure together. Applying these principles, the conviction under section 302 read with section 34 was upheld and the challenge to the eyewitness evidence and common intention failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' conviction for murder with the aid of common intention was sustainable on the evidence of related eyewitnesses whose statements had been recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and on the facts found proved.

Analysis: Evidence of related witnesses is not to be discarded merely because they are interested or because their statements were earlier recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; such evidence must be weighed with caution and can be accepted if otherwise reliable. The presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene was natural, their version of the assault was substantially consistent, and there was no sufficient motive to falsely implicate the appellants. On the question of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, common intention may be inferred from the manner of arrival, the repeated visit at night, the holding of the deceased's hands while the fatal stabbing was made, the failure to dissociate from the assault, and the conduct of leaving together thereafter. The issue of common intention must be decided on the totality of circumstances of the particular case and not by mechanically applying factual analogies from earlier decisions.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld; the challenge to the reliability of the eyewitnesses and to the applicability of common intention failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Common intention under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may be inferred from the totality of circumstances, and related eyewitness evidence is not to be rejected merely because it was previously recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if it is otherwise trustworthy.

---