Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
State of M.P. – Appellant
Versus
Ramji Lal Sharma and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal by High Court – What has weighed with High Court is that there is discrepancy in ocular evidence as well as medical evidence and/ or ocular evidence is not corroborated by medical evidence and therefore, presence of accused No.1 and 3 is doubtful – Right from very beginning of filing/lodging FIR names of all accused were disclosed – Accused No.1 and 3 were also named in FIR – All eye witnesses are common in saying that accused No.1 and 3 also came along with other accused – Therefore, their presence has been established and proved by prosecution – It cannot be said that there are any material contradictions in ocular and medical evidence of which benefit of doubt should be given to accused – Even otherwise, once it has been established and proved by prosecution that all accused came at place of incident with a common intention to kill deceased and as such, they shared common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of accused who shared common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on deceased or not – There are no material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence – Presence of all accused have been established and proved and prosecution has also been successful in proving that all accused including accused No.1 and 3 shared common intention – As such, Trial Court rightly convicted all accused including accused No.1 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC – High Court has erred in reversing conviction and acquitting accused No.1 and 3 by giving them benefit of doubt – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court, in so far as acquitting respondent No.1 and 2 herein – original accused No.1 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, hereby quashed and set aside – Judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting respondent No.1 and 2 herein original accused No.1 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, hereby restored – Sentence imposed by Trial Court also restored. (Paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 5)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced all the accused to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2018 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2006, by which, High Court has allowed the said appeal and has acquitted respondent No.1 and 2 herein – original accused No.1 and 3, for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, by giving benefit of doubt, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Now respondents herein – original accused to undergo remaining sentence as per the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Respondent No.1 and 2 to surrender before concerned Jail authorities or Court within a period of four weeks from today.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2006, by which, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has acquitted respondent No. 1 and 2 herein-original accused No. 1 and 3, for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, by giving benefit of doubt, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
2. As per the prosecution case sometime prior to 8:30 in the morning of 17.01.2002, one Devendra S/o Bhagirath, brother of deceased Munshilal, went to the house of accused Ramjilal for demanding money for grinding of wheat in the flour mill and accused persons Mukesh (A4) and Brijesh (A3) met him. When Devendra demanded money, then, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 assaulted him with kicks and punches. Somehow, he rescued himself. The said incident was brought to the notice of the complainant Laxminarayan. The brother of Devendra, namely, Ramgopal and father Bhagirath, went to the house of accused persons for enquiring about the scuffle. All the accused were going towards the house of the deceased Munshilal. While seeing them, the cousin brother of deceased namely Laxminarayan also reached the door of Munshilal. The accused-Mukesh was carrying 12 bore double barreled firearm, accused-Kallu Brijkishore was carrying 12 bore single barreled firearm and accused Brijesh alias Sadhu alias Brijnandan and Ramjilal were carrying axe. At that time, the deceased was returning after urinating in Goda of Ramswaroop. All the accused persons surrounded him. Accused-Ramjilal hit with the axe on Munshilal, which was obstructed and held by the deceased and thereafter, accused Mukesh fired from his firearm. The accused-Kallu also fired from his firearm. The deceased Munshilal fell down in the Goda of Ramswaroop. The entire incident was seen by eye witnesses including the original complainant-Laxminarayan (PW-1). When Laxminarayan, Devendra and Surender put Munshilal on the Cot (charpai) to take him to the Police Station but Munshilal died while he was being taken to the Police Station. The complainant Laxminarayan got recorded the First Information Report of the incident in the morning at 9:20 against all the four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Investigating Officer initiated the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He prepared the punchnama. He collected the post mortem report/medical evidence. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, all of them came to be tried by the learned Trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined five eye witnesses including PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5. The prosecution also examined Dr. R.K. Taneja as PW-6. The Investigating Officer was also examined by the prosecution. After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, further statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Their case was of total denial. That thereafter, on appreciation of evidence on record oral as well as the documentary, the learned Trial Court held that all the accused shared the common intention to kill the deceased. On appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced all the accused to undergo life imprisonment w
Common intention – Once it has been established and proved by prosecution that all accused came at place of incident with a common intention to kill deceased and as such, they shared common intention....
The court clarified that common intention among multiple offenders suffices for liability, regardless of individual actions substantiated by the evidence.
The High Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine its reliability, and medical evidence should support rather than contradict eyewitness accounts.
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.(2) When there is a direct evidence i....
The presumption of innocence and the requirement for clear evidence of guilt are central legal principles established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the common intention of the accused nos.1 and 3 to kill the deceased, and the c....
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
