NAND KISHORE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 1152 · Decided: 07-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•
A 
B 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 1152 
NANO KISHORE 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2005) 
JULY 07, 2011 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Conviction under -
I 
Quarrel between parties over recovery of dues by victim from I 
c co-accused - Co-accused caught hold of victim and main 
accused stabbed him whereas appellant-accused pelted 
stones at victim resulting in the death of the victim -
Conviction of three accused u/s. 302134 and sentenced to life 
imprisonment by courts below - Appeal before Supreme 
0 
Court dismissed as regards the main accused and co-
accused :.... Conviction of appellant - Challenge to - Held: As 
regards the appellant, there is definite documentary, ocular 
and medical evidence, and statement of defence witness to 
repel the plea of the appellant that he had been falsely 
E implicated - Knife was recovered in furtherance to the 
disclosure statement made by main accused and injuries on 
the body of the victim were inflicted by the knife -
Discrepancies between the statements of the alleged eye 
witnesses as well as the medical evidence does not affect the 
prosecution case - All the three accused had a common 
F intention in the commission of brutal crime -
Thus, 
prosecution has been able to establish the charge beyond 
reasonable doubt - Conviction of appellant u/s. 302134 
upheld. 
G 
s. 34 - Common intention - Application of s. 34 -
General principles - Explained. 
According to the prosecution, the victim had to 
recover some amountfrom 'M'. When the victim went to 
recover the said amount from 'M', a quarrel took place and . 
H 
1152 
--
NANO KISHORE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1153 
'M' along with 'D' and appellant-'N' killed the victim. PW-
A 
1, complainant witnessed that M had held the arms of the 
victim and 'D' was stabbing him with knife and 'N' was 
pelting stones at him: The victim later succumbed to his 
injuries. Investigation was carried out. A knife was 
recovered on the disclosure of 'D' and bricks and clothes s 
of the deceased were also recovered. The Sessions 
Judge convicted 'D' for an offence under Section 302 IPC 
while 'M'and the appellant-'N' were convicted for an 
offence under Section 302/34 and each of them were 
awarded life sentence ·with fine. The High Court upheld c 
the order. Therefore, the accused filed Special Leave 
Petition before the Supreme Court. This Court dismissed 
the SLP filed by 'M' and 'D'. Therefore, the appellant filed 
the instant appeal. 
· . Dismissing the appeal,. the Court 
D 
HELO: J. On facts, all the three accused had a 
common intention in commission of the said brutal crime. 
Each one of them participated though the vital blows 
were given by 'D'~ But for 'M' catching hold of arms of the 
deceased probably the death could have been avoided. 
E 
The appellant showed no mercy and continued pelting 
stones on the deceased even when he collapsed to the 
ground. The prosecution has been able to establish the 
charge beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 16] [1168-E-G] 
2.1. PW1, complainant had clearly stated that 'D' had 
inflicted the injuries upon the body of the deceased with 
a knife. According to Investigating officer-PWB and PW2, 
F 
the said knife was recovered by Panchnama of recovery. 
However, PW1 did not specifically state in the court that 
the knife was recovered by going to the house of the G 
accused. There is some element of difference between 
·these statements but it in no way amounts to a material 
contradiction or discrepancy which has caused any 
· prejudice to the accused. PW1 in his examination stated 
H 
1154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A that after arrest of 'D', the police had questioned him and 
he had told them about the knife which was recovered. 
However, he stated that he does not remember the exact 
place from where the recovery was made due to lapse of 
time. However, with certainty he stated that a panchnama 
B was prepared and it was signed. In his cross examination 
he categorically stated that the knife was recovered 
before him when he was called in Kotwali and he had 
seen that knife in kotwali and the knife had been 
recovered before the statement of 'D' was recorded'. This 
c evidence of the witness has to be read in conjunction with 
the statement of PWB and PW 2. Upon such reading 
recovery of the knife from the house of the accused is 
established. The doctor referred to various injuries on the 
body of the deceased including a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.