https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286083 An injured eyewitness's cogent testimony, supported by medical and forensic evidence, was treated as sufficient to prove attempt to murder with common intention. The Court held that the absence of a fatal injury or recovery of the exact weapon did not defeat the case where intention, knowledge, the weapon used, the targeted body part, motive, prior enmity, and the concerted conduct of both accused showed a coordinated attack. Firearm injury, blackening, an embedded bullet, and residue on the shirt and weapon barrels corroborated the ocular version. Common intention and constructive liability under Section 34 were established through exhortation and firing by the co-accused, and the conviction under Sections 307 and 34 IPC was upheld. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286083 An injured eyewitness's cogent testimony, supported by medical and forensic evidence, was treated as sufficient to prove attempt to murder with common intention. The Court held that the absence of a fatal injury or recovery of the exact weapon did not defeat the case where intention, knowledge, the weapon used, the targeted body part, motive, prior enmity, and the concerted conduct of both accused showed a coordinated attack. Firearm injury, blackening, an embedded bullet, and residue on the shirt and weapon barrels corroborated the ocular version. Common intention and constructive liability under Section 34 were established through exhortation and firing by the co-accused, and the conviction under Sections 307 and 34 IPC was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286083