Injured witness reliability and common intention justified sustaining murder conviction despite the charge being framed under a different liability provision.

An injured witness's testimony was accepted as reliable where he was present at the scene, suffered serious injuries, and his identification of the assailants was supported by medical evidence despite minor discrepancies and an ignored embellishment. The Court also treated the shift from Section 149 to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as legally permissible because the proved facts showed common intention: the accused came armed, acted in concert, and jointly carried out the fatal assault. On that footing, the conviction for murder and life sentence were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the evidence of the injured witness was reliable to sustain the appellants' participation in the assault; (ii) whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the facts as one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 despite the charge having been framed with reference to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): whether the evidence of the injured witness was reliable to sustain the appellants' participation in the assault.

Analysis: The injured witness was found to be present at the scene and had suffered multiple serious injuries. His testimony identifying the appellants as the assailants was accepted, while the embellishment regarding the remaining accused was ignored as an improvement. The medical evidence supported his account, and minor discrepancies did not undermine the core version of the occurrence.

Conclusion: The injured witness was reliable, and the appellants' participation in the assault stood proved.

Issue (ii): whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the facts as one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 despite the charge having been framed with reference to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Sections 34 and 149 both deal with constructive criminal liability, but Section 34 applies where the evidence shows common intention. On the proved facts, the appellants came together armed with lethal weapons, acted in concert, and jointly carried out the assault that resulted in the deaths. The presence of common intention justified sustaining the conviction under Section 34, and the substitution did not alter the basis of liability on the facts proved.

Conclusion: The conviction was validly altered to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the sentence of life imprisonment was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not succeed on the merits, and the conviction and sentence were substantially upheld with only the legal basis of liability being altered to reflect common intention.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence proves that the accused acted together with a common intention in furtherance of a shared plan, a conviction may be sustained under Section 34 even if the original charge invoked Section 149, provided no failure of justice is shown.

---