RAJKISHORE PUROHIT versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 01-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 501 
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1292 of2017) 
AUGUST 01, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.J 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss.302134 - Political rivalry - Four accused - Deceased 
C 
campaigning for removal of accused - Accused annoyed with the 
summoning of meeting called by deceased to protest for removal of 
A-3 from the post of Mayor - All accused came to place of meeting 
in car - A-2 was armed with gun - He fired at the deceased while 
others provided cover - Trial court convicted A-2 uls.302 while 
convicting others u/ss.302134 - Acquittal of accused-respondent D 
no.2 by High Court on the ground that no overt act of assault was 
attributed to him and that he was not armed - Appeal against 
acquittal by brother of the deceased - Held: Motive for assault 
existed because accused were aggrieved by the meeting summoned 
- The sequence of events, and the manner in which the occurrence 
E 
took place, manifested a pre-concerted plan and a prior meeting of 
minds - it was not the case of respondent no.2 that he was taken by 
surprise and was unaware that the co-accused was carrying a 
revolver or that they had no intention to kill the deceased - Common 
· intention by meeting of minds is established in the facts and 
circumstances of the case - Absence of overt act or possession of F 
weapon was not fatal to the prosecution case against respondent 
no.2 - Order of conviction passed by trial court restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The evidence of PWs 1, 4, 5, 13 and 23 were 
G 
consistent that the four accused came together and alighted from 
a car. Accused no.3 identified the deceased. Respondent no. 2, 
along with accused nos.2 and 4 moved forward towards the 
deceased. Accused no.4 and respondent no.2 then exhorted to 
501 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A kill the deceased, at which stage accused no.2 pulled out a revolver 
and fired at the deceased. In the melee that followed the shooting, 
the accused persons fled together in the car. The appellant, PW-I 
was the brother of the deceased and PW-5, the brother-in-law. 
There is no reason why they should be lying and falsely naming 
B 
another as the assailants, shielding the real accused, especially 
when they were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Respondent 
no.2 has not urged false implication, and on the contrary took the 
defence of alibi, which has been disbelieved by the trial court and 
affirmed by the High Court: The taking of a false plea is an 
additional aggravating factor against the accused. [Para 9) [505-
C G-H; 506-A-BJ 
D 
E 
F 
2. Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible 
to read a person's mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of 
common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common 
intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively 
from their conduct and behavior in the facts and circumstances 
of each case. Events prior to the occurrence as also after, and 
during the occurrence, are all r~levant to deduce jf there existed 
any common intention. There can be no straight jacket formula. 
The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession 
of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of 
common intention. [Para IOI [506-CJ 
3. Motive for the assault existed because the accused 
were aggrieved by the meeting summoned. The assault was 
planned in a gathering, where escape would have been easy, in 
the chaos that would follow the assault. The accused persons 
came together in a car to facilitate a quick get-away. Exhortation 
was made by respondent no.2, when the accused were at very 
close quarters to the deceased. The firing was done from a 
distance of about 6 inches. The respondent no.2 and accused 
no.4 provided cover at this time. There is nothing in the conduct 
G of respondent no.2 to draw any inference that he was taken by 
surprise, when the co-accused opened fire. Rather than provide 
help to the deceased and his relatives, respondent no.2 
immediately escaped from the place of occurrence in the chaos 
that followed, indicative of his awareness of the common intention. 
H The sequence of events, and the manner in which the occurrence 
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
503 
AND OTHERS 
took place, manifests a pre-concerted plan and a prior meeting A 
of minds. It was not the case of respondent no.2 that he was 
taken by surprise and was unaware that the

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