Court highlights non-examination of Investigating Officer and insufficient evidence on shared intention, overturns conviction under Sections 307/34 and 341 IPC
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Patna High Court acquitted Nandu Thakur, who was earlier convicted for attempted murder and wrongful restraint under Sections 307/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant had been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge in Muzaffarpur to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fined Rs. 3,000 for the attempted murder charge, along with one month imprisonment for wrongful restraint. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case stemmed from an incident on June 7, 2001, where the informant, Shambhu Mahto, alleged that while returning home from his kirana shop, he was intercepted by the accused. The prosecution alleged that Fanindra Thakur, a co-accused now deceased, fired a gunshot hitting the informant's right thigh, and Nandu Thakur caught hold of the informant from behind to facilitate the assault.
During the trial, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that Nandu Thakur shared the common intention to commit murder alongside Fanindra Thakur. The Court noted that the mere act of holding the informant does not automatically demonstrate common intention under Section 34 IPC. The testimony of several witnesses was inconsistent or lacked direct evidence linking the appellant to the act of firing. Some prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, and crucially, the Investigating Officer (IO) was not examined during the trial.
The Court emphasized that non-examination of the IO is not inherently fatal to the prosecution's case. However, in this instance, the absence of the IO deprived the defense of a fair opportunity to confront witnesses with prior statements and highlight material contradictions, a factor that contributed to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
Medical evidence confirmed firearm injuries on the informant's thigh, supporting the occurrence of the shooting, but did not implicate Nandu Thakur in the act of firing or establish his criminal intent. The Court referenced several Supreme Court precedents, including Gambhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reiterating the necessity for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused's participation with shared intention in the offence.
Consequently, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting Nandu Thakur of the charges under Sections 307/34 and 341 IPC on the ground of benefit of doubt.
This judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal trials, suspicion or similar intention is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless supported by convincing, corroborated evidence proving the accused's shared common intention. It also underscores the importance of examining all relevant witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, to ensure a fair trial.
Bottom Line:
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 34 and 341 - Mere allegation that accused caught hold of injured while co-accused fired is not by itself sufficient to prove common intention to commit murder - Non-examination of Investigating Officer assumes significance where defence is deprived of opportunity to prove contradictions and omissions - Benefit of doubt granted and conviction set aside.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 307, 34, 341; Criminal Procedure Code Section 437A
Nandu Thakur v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996512
