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

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, solely based on their presence at the crime scene without any overt act.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

[Judgment Date]: January 18, 2022

Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022

Citation: Not Available

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

Can mere presence at a crime scene lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where an accused was convicted despite the absence of any specific overt act attributed to him. The Court examined whether the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could be applied when the accused’s role was limited to accompanying the main perpetrator. This judgment clarifies the extent of liability in cases of joint criminal activity. The bench comprised Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Vesta, who was allegedly murdered by Sekadiya (Accused No. 1) and others. On the night of Diwali, between 10:00 and 11:00 PM, Sekadiya and his son, Mukesh (Accused No. 2), went to Vesta’s house, inviting him for dinner, claiming they had cooked ‘Murga’. Vesta accompanied them. Shortly after, Vesta’s wife, Nanbai, heard him screaming and rushed to Sekadiya’s house. There, she saw Sekadiya assaulting Vesta with an axe, while Sekadiya’s wife (Accused No. 3) held Vesta. Vesta died from the axe injuries. The prosecution argued that a land dispute motivated the murder.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting Accused No. 3 (Sekadiya’s wife) but upheld the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had already dismissed the appeal of Sekadiya (Accused No. 1) on January 12, 2021. Thus, the present appeal concerns only Mukesh (Accused No. 2).

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of 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.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that all the accused had a common intention to kill Vesta. They contended that Mukesh (Accused No. 2) accompanied his father, Sekadiya (Accused No. 1), to Vesta’s house to lure him, which indicates a pre-planned conspiracy. The prosecution also argued that Mukesh participated in dragging Vesta’s body, further implicating him in the crime.

The defense argued that there was no evidence to show any overt act by Mukesh. They contended that his mere presence at the scene did not prove his participation in the murder. They further argued that the prosecution’s claim of Mukesh dragging the body was not supported by the eyewitness testimony.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

✓ 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 based on the evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court’s reasoning is based on the established principles of criminal law, particularly concerning the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which requires an overt act or participation in the furtherance of a common intention.

Judgment

The Court observed that while Accused No. 1 inflicted the axe blows, there was no evidence to show that Accused No. 2 had any role in the murder, beyond being present. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court’s finding that Mukesh had dragged the body was not supported by evidence.

The Court stated that:

“…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 that:

“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 Supreme Court concluded that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in convicting Mukesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as there was no evidence of any overt act by him.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence demonstrating 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 perpetrator, is insufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also noted the absence of evidence to support the prosecution’s claim that Mukesh participated in dragging the deceased’s body.

Key Takeaways

• Mere presence is not enough: Presence at a crime scene or accompanying the main perpetrator does not automatically make one liable for the crime.
• Overt act required: For Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to apply, there must be evidence of an overt act by the accused in furtherance of the common intention.
• Importance of evidence: Convictions must be based on solid evidence and not on mere suspicion or assumptions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the release of Mukesh (Accused No. 2) from custody, as his conviction was overturned.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere presence at the scene of the crime or accompanying the main perpetrator is not sufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that an overt act is necessary to establish common intention and participation in a crime. The judgment clarifies that the prosecution must establish more than mere presence to secure a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mukesh (Accused No. 2), setting aside his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized the lack of evidence to prove any overt act by Mukesh in the murder of Vesta. This judgment underscores the principle that mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient for conviction and that an overt act is necessary to establish liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.