Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 908

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Madhusudan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2010
Decided On : 02-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh Advocate, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy Advocate, Ms. Krishna Joshi Advocate, Mr. Kheyali Singh Advocate, Mr. Asha Upadhyay Advocate, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Pandey Advocate, Mr. R.K. Kapoor Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Nachiketa Joshi AAG, Mr. Sunny Choudhary Advocate, Ms. Mrigna Shekhar Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC for a conviction, distinguishing it from common object under Section 149 IPC.

Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 307, 323, 34 - The court discussed the distinction between common intention and common object, emphasizing the necessity of proving common intention for conviction under Section 34 IPC, which was not established in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder and other offenses after a violent incident where multiple injuries were inflicted on the deceased and others. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimonies and the use of weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the common intention required for conviction under Section 34 IPC, as there was no clear evidence linking the accused to specific injuries inflicted on the deceased.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 34 IPC was sustainable given the prosecution's failure to prove common intention and the discrepancies in eyewitness accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the distinction between common intention and common object, asserting that without proof of common intention, the conviction under Section 34 IPC could not be upheld.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellant Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appears for appellant No. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General.

2. The present appeal is filed to challenge the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2000 whereunder the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh found the appeals to be devoid of merit and accordingly upheld the judgment of conviction passed against the appellants on 23.11.2000 in the ST No. 458 of 1998. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. With the aid of Section 34 of the IPC, they were also convicted under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and appropriate sentence for such conviction including life sentence, has been awarded against all the three accused.

3. On 17.07.1998, the FIR No. 294 of 1998 was registered at the Juni Police Station, Indore. The FIR indicated that at about 8:00 p.m. on 17.07.1998, while Mohan (PW-12) was taking food in his house, he heard commotion and saw the accused Ram Kripal with a sword in his hand, Babbu with a knife, Sanjay and Madhusudan with lathis and the fifth accused Rampratap with a sword. They asked Kishan why his brother urinated in front of their house. Although Kishan apologised for his brother’s act, the accused continued to abuse him. When this was opposed, the accused Ram Kripal gave a sword blow to ShriKishan (PW-6) which caused injuries on the chest region. At that time, Mohan, Gopal (the deceased), Murliram (PW-1) and Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) intervened. At that stage, the accused Ramprakash gave a sword blow to Gopal which caused injury near his elbow and thumb. The accused Babbu @ Omprakash gave knife blow on the stomach of Gopal. Accused Madhusudan gave a sword blow to Mohan (PW-12) on his head. The accused group also inflicted injuries on Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) and Murliram (PW-1). The incident was stated to have been witnessed by three ladies – Durgabai, Ashabai and Rekhabai.

4. On the basis of the crime that was registered under Sections 307, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC, the investigation was carried out and charges were framed against the five accused for commission of offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the IPC.

5. The trial was conducted against four accused i.e., Sanjay, Madhusudan, Ram Kripal and Ramprakash. The fifth accused Babbu @ Omprakash was not part of this trial process since he was absconding.

6. The learned trial court ordered for acquittal of the accused Sanjay of all the charges. The acquittal was also ordered for the remaining three accused for the offence under Section 148 IPC. However, drawing support from the provisions of Section 34 of the IPC, all three were convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 323 respectively.

7. The above judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore rendered on 23.11.2000 came to be affirmed on appeal by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2009 leading to the present proceedings.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained on account of discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and also on account of the omission of the prosecution to connect the accused with acceptable material evidence with the crime. The appellants counsel would rely on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-12, who are said to be the eye-witnesses to point out that each of them have attributed the fatal knife injury on the deceased Gopal to Babbu @ Om Prakash. The learned counsel would also highlight that there is inconsistency on whether a lathi or a sword was used by the accused Ram Kripal and the accused Ramprakash and Madhusudan. In the FIR, sword is attributed to all three accused whereas for the accused Ramprakash, the PW-1, PW-5, PW-6 testified that he was wielding a lathi. Likewis