Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not. 

With this view, a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna went on to set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein, by giving the benefit of doubt and by observing that there was a contradiction in the ocular and the medical evidence, and therefore the presence of the accused was itself doubtful, the High Court had set aside the conviction of two accused.

Brief Facts

One Devendra, son of Bhagirath, brother of deceased Munshilal, went to the house of accused Ramjilal 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, Mukesh and Brijesh 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 complainant 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 an axe.

The deceased Munshilal was returning after urinating, and 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. The entire incident was seen by eye witnesses including the original complainant Laxminarayan.

When Laxminarayan, Devendra and Surender put Munshilal on the cot (charpai) to take him to the Police Station, Munshilal died. An FIR was recorded by complainant Laxminarayan 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. 

Background litigation

The prosecution examined five eye witnesses and  also Dr. R.K. Taneja. The accused's case was of total denial. On appreciation of evidence on record oral as well as the documentary, Trial Court held that all the accused shared a common intention to kill the deceased.

Accordingly, all accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/­- each.  

In appeal, the High Court by giving benefit of doubt to accused Brijesh and Ramjilal set aside their conviction.

Top Court's analysis

The High Court, noted that as per the eye witnesses, Ramjilal and Brijesh (accused no. 1 and 3) were having axe in their hands, they attacked the deceased by their axe, however, as per the medical evidence no such injury by axe was found.

However, it was found that the High Court believed the eye witnesses so far as the other accused were concerned.

“It is also to be noted that right from the very beginning of filing/lodging the FIR the names of all the accused were disclosed. Accused No.1 and 3 were also named in the FIR. All the 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 the prosecution....", the bench said.

While relying on the deposition of one of the eye-witnesses, it was found that Ramjilal – accused No.1 first hit Munshilal with an axe which was caught by Munshilal with his hand. 

“If that be so naturally there could not be any injury on the hand of Munshilal. Even PW-5, who is also one of the witnesses, has also deposed and stated even in cross­-examination that Ramjilal hit axe and that Munshilal caught head of axe, therefore, axe could not hit Munshilal”, the court further noted.

Therefore, the Court said that it could not be held that there were any material contradictions in the ocular and the medical evidence of which benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

The top court was thus of the view that the High Court had not re-appreciated the entire evidence on record.

Thus, the judgment of the trial court was restored with a direction to the accused to undergo the remaining sentence.

Cause Title: State of M.P. vs Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr.