1. In light of the office report dated 24.11.2025, the appeal is declared to have abated so far as it concerns accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu and Arvind Kumar. The appeal survives for adjudication only in respect of appellant No. 3, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.1989 passed by the Special Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 383 of 1987 (State versus Shailendra alias Rannu and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 1987, under Section 302/307 IPC, Police Station- Powayan, District- Shahjahanpur. By the impugned judgment and order, the Special Judge, Shahjahanpur convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Sections 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100 each, and in default of payment, a further three months' rigorous imprisonment. The Special Judge, Shahjahanpur also convicted the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Section 307/34 IPC, and the accused-appellant Arvind Kumar under Section 307 IPC, sentencing each of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, with a further three months' rigorous imprisonment in default. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of a written report (Ex.Ka.1) dated 11.06.1987, submitted by the informant Ishwar Chandra (PW-1), an FIR dated 11.06.1987 (Ex.Ka.5) was registered against the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra Kumar alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Section 302/307 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that accused Arvind Kumar alias Lalla, Munmun, and Shailendra alias Rannu were known to the informant Ishwar Chandra prior to the incident. All the accused lived nearby and were familiar with the deceased, Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey, who was the uncle of the informant (PW-1). On 11.06.1987, during the Teeka ceremony of Pawan Kumar Pandey at Mohalla Kasbhara, P.S. Powayan, a quarrel took place between accused Shailendra alias Rannu and Balesh. After some time, Shailendra returned along with co-accused Arvind Kumar alias Lalla and Munmun, all were armed with country-made pistols and hand bombs. When the deceased Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey, uncle of the informant Ishwar Chandra, objected to their misconduct, accused Lalla fired at him from close range, as a result of which, he died at the spot. The accused also threw hand bombs. The accused further fired at Balesh and Anil and threw another bomb, resulting in injuries to guests Rajiv, Rajneesh and Krishnanand. Somehow, Balesh and Anil escaped. The incident occurred around 10:45 p.m. in the presence of the informant and others under adequate electric lighting. An unknown caller informed the police, who reached the spot immediately.

4. Investigating Officer Mahesh Narayan Singh (PW-6) took charge of the investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) collected various incriminating materials and objects from the scene of the incident, including empty cartridges, bullets, tikli, pieces of glass, slippers, etc., and prepared Exhibit Ka-2. He further sent the collected incriminating materials for chemical examination to the Vidhi Vigyan Prayogsala, Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) also collected blood-stained & plain soil, five tiklis of 12-bore cartridges from the place of occurrence and prepared Exhibit Ka-3.

5. The Investigating Officer (PW-6) also recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completing all formalities of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar, and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, before the Court of the concerned Magistrate.

6. The concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session for trial, as the offences involved were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

7. Charges were framed against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial.

8. After the prosecution had examined all its witnesses, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and further stated that they were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident.

9. The learned Trial Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar, and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C., awarding them life imprisonment.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1989 passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellants, namely, Shailendra alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar, and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Shailendra alias Rannu and Arvind Kumar, expired, and accordingly, the appeal stands abated so far as they are concerned. The appeal, therefore, survives for adjudication only in respect of the surviving appellant No. 3, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun.

11. Learned counsel for the surviving appellant No. 3, namely, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, submitted that the accused-appellant No. 3 had no common intention to commit the alleged crime. He further submitted that the so-called desi bombs alleged by the prosecution to have been thrown by the appellant did not target either Balesh or Anil. According to the prosecution itself, surviving appellant, namely, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun did not attack the deceased, Suresh Chandra Pandey. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, no pre-plan or pre- meditation has been established by prosecution.

12. Learned counsel for the surviving appellant further submitted that for convicting any person with the aid of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must prove pre-plan, pre-meditation, and participation in the crime. In the present case, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the elements of pre-plan, pre-meditation, or participation on the part of surviving accused-appellant No. 3, namely, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun. Despite this, the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, wrongly held surviving accused- appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun guilty under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1989 passed by the Trial Court, is liable to be set aside.

13. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) argued that accused Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, with premeditation, actively participated in the crime along with two other accused, firing a country-made pistol and throwing bombs, which resulted in the death of Suresh Chandra Pandey and injuries to Rajiv, Rajneesh, and Krishnanand. The prosecution evidence, according to the learned AGA, clearly establishes the involvement of the surviving accused-appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, thereby justifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. The order of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1989 is supported by both evidence and law and, therefore, requires no interference.

14. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the surviving accused-appellant and the learned AGA for the State, we have examined all the oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as the order of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1989 passed by the Trial Court.

15. From perusal of the written report (Ex.Ka.1), it is evident that the informant, Ishwar Chandra (PW-1), promptly reported the incident to the police, identifying accused Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, along with two other appellants now deceased, as the perpetrators of the crime.

16. Informant Ishwar Chandra (PW-1) deposed in court, corroborating the account recorded in the written report (Ex.Ka.1). He stated that on 11.06.1987 during the Teeka ceremony of Pawan Kumar Pandey, the son of the deceased Suresh Chandra Pandey, an altercation took place between Shailendra alias Rannu and Balesh and Anil. Subsequently, the accused, Shailendra alias Rannu, Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, returned with country-made pistols and bombs and attacked Suresh Chandra Pandey and others, causing injuries to Rajiv, Rajneesh, and Krishnanand. The testimony of PW-1 is consistent with the written report and contains no major contradictions, rendering his evidence reliable and trustworthy.

17. The evidence of the informant, PW-1, establishes that he was a natural eyewitness to the incident, being both a family member of the deceased, Suresh Chandra Pandey, and an invitee to the ceremony. He deposed that Shailendra alias Rannu fired at and threw a bomb towards the deceased, while Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun threw bombs and fired at Balesh and Anil, who fortunately escaped without injury, but fire from country-made pistols and hand bombs struck the deceased-Suresh Chandra Pandey, Rajiv, Rajneesh, and Krishnanand.

18. The evidence of Ishwar Chandra (PW-1) is reliable and trustworthy, being corroborated by the fact that the firing by the accused caused injuries to Suresh Chandra Pandey, Krishnanand, Rajneesh, and Rajiv. No error, discrepancy, embellishment, or concoction has been detected in his testimony, thus, rendering it credible.

19. The prosecution case is further corroborated by the testimony of Balesh Kumar alias Baleshwar (PW-2), who fully supported the account recorded in the written report. His testimony is consistent with that of PW-1, Ishwar Chandra, and is found to be reliable and trustworthy, containing no discrepancies or embellishments.

20. The prosecution case is well-supported by the evidence of Ishwar Chandra (PW-1) and Balesh Kumar alias Baleshwar (PW-2), which corroborates the written report (Ex.Ka.1). The evidence establishes that on 11.06.1987, an altercation between Shailendra alias Rannu and Balesh and Anil escalated, leading to an attack by the accused, including Arvind Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, using country-made pistols and bombs. This attack resulted in the death of Suresh Chandra Pandey and injuries to Rajiv, Rajneesh, and Krishnanand.

21. The evidence indicates that the attack was pre-planned and premeditated. On 11.06.1987, the accused persons reached on the spot at about 10:45 PM, armed with country-made pistols and bombs, and launched the attack on the victims. The Trial Court has recorded reasoned findings supported by evidence, including the medical reports prepared by Dr. Amar Lal (PW-5), which confirm injuries sustained by Rajiv Kumar, Rajneesh, and Krishnanand. Dr. Amar Lal (PW-5) reported following injuries on the body of injured Rajiv Kumar:-

                  (i)       Lacerated wound 1.05 cm x 0.75 cm x muscle deep on the inner part of left fore arm at middle.

                  (ii)      Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over the left side back lower part.

                  (iii)     Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.75 cm x muscle deep on the inner side of right ankle joint.

                  (iv)     Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.75 cm x muscle deep on the left sole.

                  (v)      Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.75 cm x skin deep on the outer side upper part of left leg.

                  Dr. Amar Lal (PW-5) reported following injury on the body of injured Rajneesh:-

                  (i)       Blast injury (lacerated wound) 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on the back and upper part of leg (left).

                  Dr. Amar Lal (PW-5) reported following injuries on the body of injured Krishnanand:-

                  (i)       Blast injury lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of left leg back.

22. Dr. Amar Lal (PW-5) specifically noted injuries suffered by all injured persons and opined that these were blast injuries. The opinion of PW-5 that injuries were caused by a bomb blast is further corroborated by the recovery memo, which records the recovery of empty cartridges, tikles, bullets, and parts of glass from the place of occurrence, indicating that a bomb blast had indeed occurred. Thus, we find that oral evidence found support from medical evidence. In other words, oral and medical evidence corroborate each other.

23. Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-8) conducted post-mortem of deceased, Suresh Chandra Pandey and prepared post-mortem report (Ex.Ka.21) and found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:

                  (i)       Gun shot wound of entry 4cm x 2cm with lacerated and inverted margins x brain cavity deep. On the left side of the neck 2cms below and behind the left ear. There is no blacking and behind the left ear. There is no blacking, tattooing & scorching around the wound. The direction is rightward and slightly upward.

                  (ii)      Gun shot wound of entry 2cm circular brain deep with lacerated and inverted margins on the left side of face. 3 Cm infront of left ear, blackening and tattoing was present around the wound but there is no charring section of wound was rightwart and slightly upward.

                  (iii)     Gun shot wound of entry 1cm circular with lacerated and inverted margins oval cavity deep on the left side of the face 1cm in front of injury no.1 blacking present around the wound. The direction of wound was rightward.

                  (iv)     Gun shot wound of entry 2,1/2cm circular with lacerated & inverted margins x chest cavity deep on the left side of the root of the neck. Just behind the left clablicle middle part. There is no blacking, tattooing & scorching around the wound. The direction of the wound is backward & slightly downward.

                  (v)      Blacking from right nose present.

                  (vi)     Multiple gun powder burns all over the back of left lower limb.

                  (vii)    Abrasion 1/2cm x 1/2cm on the back of right leg in the middle.

                  (viii)    Lacerated wound 1/2cm x 1/2cm skin on the back of the left arm 8 cms above the elbow.

                  (ix)     Lacerated wound 1/2cm x 1/2cm on the back of left arm 4cm below the shoulder joint.

                  (x)      Abrasion 1cm x 1/2cm on the back of chest left side lower part.

24. From perusal of the post-mortem report (Ex.Ka.21), it is evident that Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-8) recovered 104 small mettalic pallets and one conical shaped mettalic bullet & wadding pieces from the body of the deceased, Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey. Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-8) opined that the death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries. The injuries found on the body of the deceased, Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey clearly show that he was attacked with fire arms and bombs, resulting in multiple firearm and bomb blast injuries on his body.

25. The evidence collected by Investigating Officer, Mahesh Narayan Singh (PW-6), including the recovery of empty cartridges, tikles, bullets and glass parts, corroborates the use of firearms and country-made bombs by the accused persons in the commission of alleged crime. The evidence and circumstances clearly establishes the fact that the surviving accused, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmum along with other appellants who are now dead, had made a pre-planned and premeditated attack, and actively participated in the alleged crime.

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab; AIR 1977 Supreme Court 109 has held on Section 34 IPC that:

                  "the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision."

27.    In the case of Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1460, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 20 & 23 has held that:

                  "20. Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34 be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true contents of the Section are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself.

                  23. The Section does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34 , when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them."

28.    In the case of Virendra Singh v. State of M.P.; (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 407, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 15, 16 and 17 has held that:

                  "15. Ordinarily, a person is responsible for his own act. A person can also be vicariously responsible for the acts of others if he had the common intention to commit the offence. The words "common intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It must be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Common intention comes into force prior to the commission of the act in point of time, which need not be a long gap. Under this section a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. Though common intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime showing a pre- arranged plan and prior concert. The common intention may develop in course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that inference.

                  16. The essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to prove even the intention of an individual and, therefore, it is all the more difficult to show the common intention of a group of persons. Therefore, in order to find whether a person is guilty of common intention, it is absolutely necessary to carefully and critically examine the entire evidence on record. The common intention can be spelt out only from the evidence on record.

                  17.     Section 34 is not a substantive offence. It is imperative that before a man can be held liable for acts done by another, under the provisions of this section, it must be established that there was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two and the person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. Unless common intention and participation are both present, this section cannot apply."

29. Upon re-examining the evidence in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's case laws as referred above, it is clear that prosecution witnesses Ishwar Chandra (PW-1), Balesh Kumar alias Baleshwar (PW-2), Dr. Amar Lal (PW-5), and Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW-8) confirm that accused- appellants Sanjeev Kumar alias Munmun, Shailendra Kumar alias Rannu, and Arvind Kumar arrived at the place of occurrence at about 10:45 PM, armed with country-made pistols and bombs.The accused appellants opened fire and threw bombs, targeting Suresh Chandra Pandey, Balesh, and Anil. Balesh and Anil escaped, but Rajnish, Rajiv, Krishnanand, and Suresh Chandra Pandey received injuries from firearms and bomb blasts. Suresh Chandra Pandey succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot. The prosecution evidence clearly establishes that surviving appellant, Sanjeev Kumar alias Munmun, along with other appellants now deceased, had a pre-planned and pre- meditated act, and all participated in the comission of alleged crime. The ingredients of Section 34 IPC are fully established, making all accused liable. The defence arguments lack merit in light of the evidence and also in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

30. We have also examined the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1989 passed by the learned Trial Court, which thoroughly analyzed the prosecution evidence and emphasized the premeditation and active participation of the accused-appellants in the crime. A perusal of the judgment clearly reflects that the surviving accused-appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, along with the other now-deceased appellants, were hardened criminals. Owing to this circumstance, Pawan Kumar Pandey alias Guppu, the son of the deceased Dr. Suresh Chandra Pandey as well as the injured witnesses, namely Rajiv, Rajneesh, and Krishnanand, did not appear before the Court to depose as prosecution witnesses.

31. Thus, from the above discussion, we find no force or merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the surviving appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun. We further hold that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and correctly found the appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, along with the other now-deceased appellants, guilty under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence.

32. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1989, passed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC, is fully supported by the evidence available on record. The evidence conclusively establishes the participation of the surviving appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, in the crime with premeditation and prior planning, along with the deceased co-accused.

33. Thus, from the above discussions, it is evident that the essential ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC, namely, pre-planning, premeditation and participation, stand fully established and proved against the surviving accused-appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmum. Since the prosecution evidence has conclusively proved the existence of pre-plan, premeditation and active participation on the part of the accused-appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmum, he is consequently liable to be convicted for the offence and charge levelled against him by the prosecution.

34. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby rejected.

35. The accused-appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, is presently on bail. His personal bond stands cancelled, and his sureties are discharged from their liabilities. He is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, within one month from today, to undergo the remaining sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.02.1989.

36. In the event the accused-appellant, Sanjiv Kumar alias Munmun, fails to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, within the stipulated period of one month, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur, shall issue a non-bailable warrant to secure his arrest. Upon arrest, he shall be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence in accordance with the Trial Court’s order dated 17.02.1989.

37. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, is directed to intimate this Court regarding compliance of this order.

38. Office is directed to certify the judgment to the learned Trial Court forthwith along with lower court record.