Supreme Court of India· 08 September 2026

Must an accused proved to be part of an unlawful assembly have fired the fatal shot to be convicted on common intention or object?

Santosh Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors

2026 INSC 972 · Criminal Appeal No.1306 of 2022
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

An accused proved to be part of an unlawful assembly need not have fired the fatal shot to be convicted on common intention or object.

No. An accused proved to be part of an unlawful assembly and present at the scene with a weapon can be convicted on the basis of common intention or common object under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC even though the fatal shot was fired by someone else. (¶8)

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.34, s.149 — Unlawful assembly — Common intention — Related witnesses — Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus — IPC — s.34, s.149 — Presence in unlawful assembly — Held: An accused proved to be part of an unlawful assembly need not have fired the fatal shot to be convicted on common intention or object under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC. (¶8) Evidence — Appreciation of testimony — Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus — Held further: The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in criminal trials in India; the Court must separate the truthful part of a witness's testimony from the false. Appeal against A6 and A12 allowed; A13's acquittal sustained. (¶26, 27)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 8The finding of the Trial Court was reversed by the High Court on the premise that his mere presence with a double barrel gun, without having shot at the victim does not implicate him with the crime even under Section 149 or Section 34 of the IPC. This finding according to us cannot be countenanced. His presence at the scene of occurrence along with some others with a double barrel gun if established, even if the fatal shot had not been fired by him; he can be roped in on common intention and object, if he is proved to be a part of the group of accused; constituting either an unlawful assembly under Section 149 or under Section 34 of the IPC.

Acts & Sections

s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.149 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Santosh Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply in criminal trials in India?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections