Mitali Palnitkar
Published on: March 10, 2022 at 18:24 IST
The Supreme Court observed that in a Murder Case, once it is proved and established that all the Accused gathered at the Crime scene with the Common Intention to kill, it becomes immaterial whether some of them did not use any weapon or did not cause any Injury to the Victim.
The Division Bench comprised Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna. It noted that the eye-Witness accounted that the Accused had brought an axe to kill the Victim and this could not be discounted by the fact there were No Injuries from an axe on the Deceased.
The Court ruled that the presence of all the Accused at the Crime scene to kill the deceased had been established and the Trial Court had rightfully Convicted them.
The Accused were held Guilty by the Trial Court under Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 34 (Criminal Acts done by several with Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for killing Munshilal (Deceased). All the Accused were sentenced to Life Imprisonment.
The Accused were aggrieved by the Trial Court Order and had moved an Appeal before the High Court. It allowed the Appeals preferred by two of the Accused observing that there was a contradiction in statement of Eye-Witness and Medical Evidence and hence, the presence was doubtful.
The High Court opined so because of the fact that the Eye-Witness mentioned that Accused brought an axe to attack the Victim but there was no Medical Evidence for the same.
An Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the Madhya Pradesh High Court Order which had reversed the Murder Conviction of two of the four Accused persons.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in concluding that there was a contradiction in Evidence right from the beginning that is filing of the First Information Report (FIR).
It noted that the High Court failed to consider the vital aspect of the Trial Court Order with respect to the Common Intention shared by all the Accused persons to kill the Deceased.
It allowed the Appeal and the restored the decision of the Trial Court by setting aside the High Court decision.
Also Read: Common intention and common object
