1. Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code arising from a political clash. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : K.T.Thomas
Kalachand Bhowmik
Versus
State Of Tripura
Case No. : 352 of 1998
Date of Decision : 2/3/00
Mere presence in a crowd chasing a victim does not establish common intention to kill. Ocular testimony attributing specific injuries must be supported by medical evidence; if the post-mortem report contradicts such testimony, the benefit of reasonable doubt must be given to the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 read with 149 and 148 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Conviction for murder - Common intention - Mere presence in a crowd chasing the deceased, especially in a political context, is insufficient to establish a common intention to cause death - Testimony of a witness alleging specific acts of violence must be supported by medical evidence - Absence of any corresponding injury in the post-mortem report creates reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Evidence - Ocular testimony vs. Medical evidence - Where the medical report contradicts the specific role attributed to the accused by a witness, the benefit of reasonable doubt must be given to the accused. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that they, along with others belonging to a political party, chased a member of a rival political party and strangulated him to death. The specific role attributed to the appellants was that they inflicted blows with lathis. However, the post-mortem report showed no injuries consistent with lathi blows.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the testimony of the witness who claimed the appellants inflicted lathi blows was isolated and unsupported by medical evidence, as the post-mortem report showed no bruises, contusions, or abrasions on the body of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the appellants shared a common intention with the actual killers to cause the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere participation in a crowd chasing a victim does not necessarily imply a common intention to kill, particularly in a political context. When ocular testimony regarding specific injuries is completely contradicted by medical evidence, a reasonable doubt is created, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenged the conviction, disputing the shared common intention to kill and the reliability of evidence regarding their specific roles in the assault. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Mere presence in a political crowd chasing a victim is insufficient to prove common intention to kill, especially when medical evidence contradicts assault testimony. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Common intention to commit murder is not established by mere presence in a crowd without corroborating evidence of a shared intent to kill. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted and ordered to be released. (Para 7 )
6. Does mere presence in a crowd chasing a victim establish common intention to commit murder?
No. Being part of a crowd, particularly one associated with a political party, does not necessarily mean the individuals shared a common intention to cause death, as the intention can be different. (Para 5 )
7. How does the court treat oral testimony of assault when it is contradicted by medical evidence?
Oral testimony regarding specific injuries, such as lathi blows, that is unsupported by medical evidence, such as a post-mortem report showing no bruises or contusions, is considered isolated and insufficient to prove guilt. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. When is the benefit of reasonable doubt granted in cases involving common intention?
The benefit of reasonable doubt is granted when the cumulative assessment of evidence fails to conclusively prove that the accused shared the common intention of the actual killers. (Para 6 )
(1) THE Appellants are only two now as all other co-accused got dropped off on the way. They were a crowd in the beginning but when the chargesheet was laid there were twenty four persons for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. When the Sessions Judge examined the case for the purpose of framing the charge he found that only ten can be charged and hence discharged the remaining fourteen at the stage of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After trial, four persons were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. They and the remaining were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code for which short term of imprisonment had been awarded. We are told that those remaining accused who were convicted only under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code have completed their jail sentence and are not interested in challenging the conviction. The cenvicted four persons including two appellants filed appeal before the High Court and a Division Bench confirmed the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section" of the Indian Penal Code. The other two were acquitted. Thus the present two appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
(2) THE charges framed against A.3 Hemanta Tripura and A.4 Jatindra Tripura have been read out by Dr. U.R. Lalit learned senior Counsel who argued for the Appellants to show that those two persons were specifically charged for the murder of the deceased Napal Das. In this case, the present appellants were charged only with Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
(3) THE substance of the allegation against them was that on 21.6.1990 at about 4.00 p.m. they along with their companions who all belonged to Communist Marxist Party chased the deceased Napal Das (who belonged to the Congress Party) and finally they succeeded in intercepting the victim and some of the assailants strangulated him to death. The specific role attributed to the present appellant is that they inflicted blow with lathis and nothing else.
(4) SHRI U.R. Lalit, learned senior Counsel read out the contents of the postmortem report which showed all the antemortem injuries noted by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. It is pertinent to point out that there is not even a single injury in the said report which could even indirectly be attributed to a blow with lathi. The only witness, among the several witnesses examined, who testified that the present appellants inflicted blows with lathis was Public Witness . 12. Of course Public Witness . 1 to Public Witness .3 said that they had seen the appellants also among the large number of persons who chased the deceased and the appellants had lathis in their possession.
(5) THE question is whether the appellants shared the common intention with the real killers who at the same point of time strangulated the deceased to death. The mere fact that they were also included in the crowd which followed the deceased, is not enough to credit the appellants with the common intention of chasing with the real killers. We notice the fact that the crowd which followed the deceased belonged to a political party and therefore running in the crowd need not necessarily be with the common intention to cause death. The intention can be different as well. If there was reliable evidence to show that the appellants inflicted lathi blows on the deceased perhaps we could have persuaded ourselves in believing that they too shared the intention to attack the victim. The testimony of Public Witness .12 that he saw the Appellants inflicted (inflicting?) lathi blows on the deceased stands isolated and unsupported by a corresponding medical evidence. We pointed out earlier that the post-mortem report does not show even a bruise, much less a contusion or abrasion on the dead body.
(6) THE cumulati
