Common intention liability survives a co-participant's acquittal when the accused's own evidence proves participation.

Liability under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is assessed on the evidence led against the accused in the particular case, and an acquittal of a co-participant in a separate trial does not bind the later court or prevent it from examining common intention. The earlier acquittal therefore did not bar conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder on the evidence in his own case. The principle against conflicting findings was held inapplicable because the proceedings involved different accused and different evidentiary records, and the conviction under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of one participant in a separate trial prevented the Court from finding, on the evidence in the appellant's case, that the appellant shared a common intention and was liable for murder and attempted murder under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Liability under section 34 depends on the evidence led in the particular case against the accused being tried. An acquittal in another proceeding to which the present appellant was not a party does not bind the later court or make it impermissible to examine whether the acquitted person acted with the appellant in furtherance of a common intention. The earlier acquittal of the co-participant therefore did not create a legal bar to convicting the appellant on the basis of the evidence in his own case. The principle against conflicting findings did not assist the appellant because the two cases were against different persons and were decided on different evidence.

Conclusion: The appellant's conviction under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, and the challenge based on the acquittal of the co-participant failed.

---