Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to lack of overt act: Mukesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 34

Judges: M. R. Shah, J., B. V. Nagarathna, J.

Can mere presence at the scene of a crime lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether an accused could be held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when no specific overt act was attributed to them. The judgment highlights the necessity of proving an active role in the commission of a crime for a conviction, especially when relying on the principle of common intention. The bench comprised Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The case began with an FIR filed by Nanbai, the wife of the deceased, Vesta, at the Nanpur Police Station. According to Nanbai, on the night of Diwali, around 10:00 or 11:00 pm, her husband’s elder brother (Jeth), Sekadiya (Accused No. 1), and Sekadiya’s son, Mukesh (Accused No. 2), came to their house. They invited Vesta to their house, saying they had cooked ‘Murga’ (chicken). Vesta accompanied them.

Shortly after, Nanbai heard Vesta screaming. She rushed to Sekadiya’s house and saw Sekadiya’s wife (Jethani), who is Accused No. 3, holding Vesta while Sekadiya assaulted him with an axe on the head. Vesta fell due to the injuries and subsequently died. The prosecution argued that a land dispute was the motive behind the murder. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found all the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting Accused No. 3 (Sekadiya’s wife) but upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the appeal of Accused No. 1, Sekadiya, on 12.01.2021. The present appeal was only regarding Accused No. 2, Mukesh.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines the punishment for murder:

“302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:

“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, establishes the principle of joint criminal liability. It states that when a criminal act is carried out by multiple individuals in furtherance of a shared intention, each person is responsible as if they had performed the act alone. This section is often used to prosecute individuals who, while not directly committing the crime, participated in it with a common intention.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that Mukesh, along with his father, went to the deceased’s house to call him for dinner, and that there was a conspiracy to kill the deceased. It was also argued that Mukesh dragged the dead body and threw it in the courtyard.

Mukesh argued that there was no overt act attributed to him. He contended that he merely accompanied his father to call the deceased for dinner and that there was no evidence to suggest that he participated in the murder. He also stated that he was falsely implicated due to enmity arising from election disputes.

The innovativeness of the argument by Mukesh lies in highlighting the lack of any specific overt act attributed to him, thereby challenging the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant – accused No. 2 – Mukesh for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable when there is no overt act attributed to him?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that there was no overt act attributed to Mukesh. The court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in convicting Mukesh solely based on his presence at the scene of the crime.

The Court observed that there were specific allegations against Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3, but Accused No. 3 was acquitted by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the finding by the Trial Court that Mukesh dragged the dead body was not supported by any evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence of any overt act by Mukesh in the commission of the murder. The Court emphasized that mere presence at the scene of the crime or accompanying the main accused is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also noted the absence of any evidence to support the claim that Mukesh dragged the dead body.

The Court stated, “solely on the basis that appellant – accused No.2 – Mukesh accompanied with accused No.1 when they went to the house of the deceased and invited him to dinner in their house by that itself it cannot be said that there was any criminal conspiracy hatched by all the accused.”

The Court also noted, “As observed hereinabove, there are no allegations even by PW1 that Mukesh had dragged the dead body and thrown it into the courtyard of the deceased.”

The Court concluded, “Therefore, we are of the opinion that both, Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in convicting appellant herein – accused No.2 – Mukesh for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• Overt Act Requirement: For a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient. There must be evidence of an overt act by the accused demonstrating their participation in the crime.
• Common Intention: The principle of common intention requires more than just a shared presence; it requires a shared intention to commit the crime, which must be supported by evidence.
• Importance of Evidence: Courts must rely on concrete evidence and cannot convict an accused based on assumptions or presumptions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that since the conviction and sentence against Mukesh were quashed, he should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient. There must be evidence of an overt act by the accused demonstrating their participation in the crime. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability requires active participation and cannot be based solely on passive presence or association. This does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mukesh, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove any overt act by Mukesh, and his mere presence at the scene of the crime was not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence and active participation in a crime for a conviction.