Attempt to murder and common intention proved through eyewitness, medical, and forensic evidence despite no fatal injury or weapon recovery.

An injured eyewitness's cogent testimony, supported by medical and forensic evidence, was treated as sufficient to prove attempt to murder with common intention. The Court held that the absence of a fatal injury or recovery of the exact weapon did not defeat the case where intention, knowledge, the weapon used, the targeted body part, motive, prior enmity, and the concerted conduct of both accused showed a coordinated attack. Firearm injury, blackening, an embedded bullet, and residue on the shirt and weapon barrels corroborated the ocular version. Common intention and constructive liability under Section 34 were established through exhortation and firing by the co-accused, and the conviction under Sections 307 and 34 IPC was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the evidence established the offence of attempt to murder with common intention under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the conviction could stand despite the absence of a fatal injury or recovery of the exact weapon used.

Analysis: The injured eyewitness gave a cogent account of the occurrence and his testimony was accepted despite hostile support from the other witness. The Court held that the nature of the injury was not by itself; the relevant factors were the intention, knowledge, weapon used, part of the body targeted, motive, prior enmity, and the concerted act of both accused. The medical and forensic material supported the ocular version, including the firearm injury, blackening, embedded bullet, and residue on the shirt and weapon barrels. The Court also held that participation of both accused, including the exhortation and firing by the co-accused, established common intention and constructive liability under Section 34.

Conclusion: The offence under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was proved, and the conviction was upheld. The separate conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act was treated as unnecessary in view of the graver offence.

---