The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that mere presence in a free fight is insufficient to sustain criminal conviction unless the prosecution proves a specific role, common intention, or common object attributable to the accused. In State of J&K v. Nazir Ahmad Bhat & Ors., the case arose from a violent clash between two village groups over a disputed pathway, resulting in injuries and the subsequent death of one person. While the Sessions Court convicted four accused under Section 304 Part I RPC and acquitted others, both the State and the convicted accused appealed. The High Court found serious contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding the place, timing, and manner of occurrence. Medical evidence did not clearly link the alleged weapons to the fatal injuries. The incident was held to be a mutual free fight, involving stone pelting from both sides, negating any inference of common intention. Applying the principle of parity, the Court ruled that when several co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence, selective conviction is impermissible. Reiterating that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof,” the Court extended the benefit of doubt and set aside the convictions.