https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191361 A cryptic telephonic message that merely alerts police to a shooting, without particulars of the occurrence, manner of commission, or identity of the deceased, does not constitute the first information report; the later eyewitness report was correctly treated as the FIR. The evidence also showed that the accused armed themselves, accosted and dragged the deceased, and acted in concert with the principal assailant before the fatal shots were fired. Their active participation in the coordinated attack established common intention, and liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:51:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191361 A cryptic telephonic message that merely alerts police to a shooting, without particulars of the occurrence, manner of commission, or identity of the deceased, does not constitute the first information report; the later eyewitness report was correctly treated as the FIR. The evidence also showed that the accused armed themselves, accosted and dragged the deceased, and acted in concert with the principal assailant before the fatal shots were fired. Their active participation in the coordinated attack established common intention, and liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191361