The Supreme Court has converted the conviction of an accused from murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, holding that mere presence at the scene of offence and carrying a firearm, without proof of prior meeting of minds or participation in the fatal act, is insufficient to sustain a conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih has observed that the prosecution evidence did not conclusively establish that the appellant fired at the deceased or caused any injury contributing to the death. The evidence rather showed that the appellant arrived at the spot after the incident had already commenced and approached from a different direction, thereby weakening the allegation of a pre-arranged plan.
The case arose from an incident that allegedly took place on May 12, 1999, in village Sarsi, Ratlam district of Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, multiple persons, including the appellant Sanjay Singh, assaulted one Deshpal Singh using firearms and other weapons. An FIR was registered under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC along with provisions of the Arms Act. Later, after the injured succumbed to injuries, the offence was converted to Section 302 IPC.
During trial, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant and one co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while five other co-accused were acquitted. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction in appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that no overt act causing the fatal injury was attributed to him and that the prosecution failed to establish any prior meeting of minds necessary for invoking Section 34 IPC. It was also argued that the alleged dying declaration did not assign the fatal injury to the appellant and that the evidence indicated he arrived at the spot after the principal accused had already fired the fatal shot.
The Supreme Court examined the legal principles governing Section 34 IPC and reiterated that common intention requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds. The Court relied upon precedents including Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor and Pandurang and Others v. State of Hyderabad to emphasize that simultaneous presence or similar intention alone cannot justify vicarious criminal liability under Section 34 IPC.
The bench also scrutinized the dying declaration and testimony of an injured witness (PW-6). It noted that while the appellant was allegedly carrying a firearm, the injured witness stated that he had lifted the barrel of the appellant’s gun upwards during the incident, resulting in the firearm not being used against the deceased. The Court held that this evidence did not support the prosecution’s claim that the appellant caused the fatal injury.
The Supreme Court further reiterated that mere presence at the scene of crime cannot automatically attract Section 34 IPC unless the prosecution proves participation in furtherance of common intention. Reliance was also placed on Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Munni Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
After evaluating the evidence, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 34 IPC were not established. However, considering that the appellant was present at the scene armed with a firearm and was aware of the serious nature of the incident, the Court held that his conduct would attract Section 307 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. Considering that the appellant had already undergone approximately 9 years and 9 months of incarceration without remission, the Court limited the sentence to the period already undergone and held that he need not surrender if not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Sanjay Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: JURISHOUR-1181-SC-2026
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.440 OF 2013
Date: 08/05/2026
