It is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not: Supreme Court

It is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not.

Background 

The prosecution case is that sometime prior to 8:30 in the morning, one Devendra, son of 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 and Brijesh met him. When Devendra demanded money, Brijesh and Mukesh assaulted him with kicks and punches. Somehow, he rescued himself. 

All the accused were going towards the house of the deceased Munshilal. While seeing them, the cousin brother of the deceased namely Laxminarayan also reached the door of Munshilal. At that time, the deceased was returning after urinating in Goda of Ramswaroop. All the accused persons surrounded him. Accused­ Ramjilal hit Munshilal with the axe, 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.

Decision 

The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna noted that right from the very beginning of filing/lodging the FIR the names of all the accused were disclosed. Accused were also named in the FIR. All the eyewitnesses are common in saying that the accused also came along with other accused. Therefore, their presence has been established and proved by the prosecution.

The court stated that even otherwise 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. 

The court said that as such there are no material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. The presence of all the accused have been established and proved and  the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused including accused shared the common intention.

The court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitting the respondent-original accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 

The court further restored the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting respondent original accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 

The court directed that the respondents-original accused to undergo the remaining sentence as per the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Case title: State of M.P. v/s Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr. 

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.293 OF 2022

Click here to read the Order/Judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *