Common intention and admissibility of admissions were upheld through concerted conduct, motive, and evidence rules.

Common intention under Section 34 IPC may be inferred from concerted conduct, the weapons carried, motive, and surrounding circumstances, rather than from mere presence at the scene; on the facts described, the convictions were sustained on that basis. The text also states that an anonymous letter containing an admission relevant to motive was admissible as corroborative evidence because it was not a statement made to a police officer during investigation and therefore did not attract the Section 162 CrPC bar; it was treated as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. The convictions were upheld and the appeals failed on the substantial grounds raised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit murder so as to sustain conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the anonymous letter relied upon by the prosecution was admissible in evidence and excluded by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants shared a common intention to commit murder so as to sustain conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The appellants came together, two of them were armed with guns, and the surrounding circumstances showed a concerted act directed against the deceased. The evidence accepted by the trial court and the High Court showed a motive for revenge against the deceased, and the conduct and words attributed to the appellants at the time of occurrence supported a shared design. Common intention was therefore inferred from the proved facts and not from mere presence.

Conclusion: The conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was rightly sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the anonymous letter relied upon by the prosecution was admissible in evidence and excluded by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The letter contained an admission relevant to motive and was treated as corroborative of the identifying witnesses. It was not a statement recorded by a police officer in the course of investigation so as to attract the bar under Section 162. An admission falling within Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was therefore admissible.

Conclusion: The letter was admissible in evidence and was not hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were upheld and the criminal appeals failed on all substantial grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Common intention may be inferred from the concerted conduct, weapons carried, motive and surrounding circumstances, and an admission relevant to motive is admissible if it is not a statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation.

---