Common intention not proved; murder conviction replaced with lesser offences, and granted appeals were heard independently.

A non-speaking rejection of special leave in a co-accused's matter does not affirm the High Court's reasoning or create merger, so an appeal by accused persons for whom leave has been granted must be examined independently on its own merits. The evidence also did not establish a shared common object or common intention to commit murder: the occurrence was a sudden fight after an earlier altercation, and the injuries were not shown to support murder liability under Section 302 IPC. Murder and group liability were set aside, and the convictions were confined to the lesser offences proved against each appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of the special leave petition of co-accused barred consideration of the appellants' challenge after leave had been granted; (ii) Whether the evidence established common object or common intention to commit murder, and if not, what offences were made out against each appellant.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the special leave petition of co-accused barred consideration of the appellants' challenge after leave had been granted

Analysis: An order rejecting special leave does not amount to affirmation of the High Court's reasoning or merger of the High Court judgment with the order of the Supreme Court. A grant of leave to some accused enables their appeals to be examined on their own merits, and relief cannot be denied merely because a co-accused's special leave petition was earlier rejected. The doctrine of precedent does not attach to a non-speaking rejection of special leave in the manner contended.

Conclusion: The appellants' appeals were maintainable and could be decided independently notwithstanding dismissal of the co-accused's special leave petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established common object or common intention to commit murder, and if not, what offences were made out against each appellant

Analysis: The evidence did not satisfactorily prove that the accused shared a common object or common intention to cause death. The occurrence appeared to be a sudden fight arising out of earlier altercation, and the blows attributed to the assailants were by the blunt side of the weapon or were directed to non-vital parts. In these circumstances, the mental element necessary for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was absent, though the acts disclosed knowledge of the likely consequences and supported conviction for lesser offences according to the role of each accused.

Conclusion: The conviction for murder and allied group liability was set aside. Satbir was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Gulbir under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Hari Singh under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part, with the murder conviction replaced by convictions for lesser offences tailored to the individual participation and mental element proved against each appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of special leave in a co-accused's case does not preclude independent adjudication of a granted appeal, and where common object or common intention to is not proved, liability must be confined to the lesser offence actually established against each accused.

---