Section 34 vicarious liability for murder fails without shared intention; conviction under murder charge set aside.

Section 34 IPC vicarious liability for murder was not made out because the evidence did not show prior meeting of minds, armed entry, or any shared intention to kill; mere presence at the scene was insufficient to fix constructive liability. In an appeal against acquittal, the view favourable to the accused was preferred where two views were possible, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was set aside and the accused was acquitted of that charge, while the conviction and sentence under Section 457(1) were maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder committed by the co-accused, and whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 could be sustained.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the appellant entered the house armed or that there was any prior meeting of minds between him and the co-accused to commit murder. The prosecution case itself was that the common intention, if any, related to robbery, which was not proved. Mere presence at the scene, even assuming the appellant was present when the co-accused fired the shot, was insufficient to attract constructive liability. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused should not be disturbed. The materials on record did not justify an inference that the appellant shared the co-accused's intention to commit murder.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of that charge. The conviction and sentence under Section 457(1) of the Indian Penal Code were affirmed.

---