STATE OF M.P. versus RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 09-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 754
754
STATE OF M.P.
v.
RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022)
MARCH 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Common
Intention – Trial Court held that all the four accused shared the
common intention to kill the deceased, and convicted them u/s.302
r/w s.34 – High Court allowed appeal of accused no.1 and 3
(respondent No.1 and 2), by giving them benefit of doubt and by
observing that there was a contradiction in the ocular and medical
evidence and therefore their presence itself was doubtful – According
to High Court, three eye witnesses stated that respondent No.1 and
2 were having axe in their hands, and they attacked the deceased
by their axe, however, as per medical evidence no such injury by
axe was found – On appeal by the State, held: On facts, there were
no material contradictions as such between ocular and medical
evidence, of which benefit of doubt should be given to the accused
– Presence of all accused was established and proved and the
prosecution was successful in proving that all the accused including
respondent No.1 and 2 shared the common intention – Even
otherwise, once it was 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 was 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 – Trial
Court rightly convicted all the accused including respondent No.1
and 2 u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. According to the High Court, eye witnesses PW1,
PW3 and PW5 stated that 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 is found.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
However, it is required to be noted that PW1, PW3 and PW5 are
all eye witnesses to the incident and they are believed so far as
the other accused are 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. Even on going through the deposition of PW1,
his case was that accused No.1 first hit deceased with an axe
which was caught by deceased with his hand. If that be so naturally
there could not be any injury on the hand of deceased. Even PW5,
who is also one of the witnesses, has also deposed and stated
even in cross-examination that accused no.1 hit axe and that
deceased caught head of axe, therefore, axe could not hit
deceased. Therefore, as such it cannot be said that there are any
material contradictions in the ocular and the medical evidence of
which benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
[Para 4.1][759-A-F]
2 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. [Para 4.2][759-F-G]
3. As such the Trial Court gave specific findings on the
common intention shared by all the accused to kill the deceased.
However, the High Court has not at all considered the aforesaid
vital aspect of the case. The High Court has also not discussed
and/or re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and has
acquitted accused No.1 and 3 by simply observing that there are
contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence, and therefore
the presence of accused No.1 and 3 is doubtful and therefore,
they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 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
STATE OF M.P. v. RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
the accused including accused No.1 and 3 shared the common
inten

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