Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to voluntarily causing hurt in land dispute case: Mihir Gope vs. State of Jharkhand (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 8 January 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 123

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the evidence does not clearly establish a shared intention among the accused? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a violent land dispute. The core issue revolved around whether the appellants, Mihir Gope and Prabhat Gope, could be held liable for murder when the evidence pointed more towards individual acts of violence rather than a pre-planned, collective intention to kill. This judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, delves into the nuances of criminal intent and the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Background

The case originated from a violent clash on August 20, 2005, stemming from a land dispute between the Gope and Mahto families in Obra Mouza. The conflict escalated when Manohar Gope constructed a hut on land claimed by the Mahto family. This act ignited a confrontation, resulting in the deaths of Anil Mahto and Jatu Mahto, and injuries to several others, including Kasi Ram Mahto, the complainant. The prosecution alleged that Manohar Gope, along with his sons Mihir, Prabhat, and Kailash, assaulted members of the Mahto family. The key point of contention was the construction of the hut, which served as the primary motive for the violence.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bokaro) convicted Mihir Gope and Prabhat Gope, along with two others, under Sections 341, 307, 325, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offense under Section 302. The High Court, in appeals by the convicted accused, upheld the conviction and sentences of Mihir and Prabhat Gope, but set aside the conviction of Usha Devi, Mihir’s wife, due to lack of evidence of assault by her. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states,
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 307: This section deals with the punishment for attempt to murder. It states,
  “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
• Section 325: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It states,
  “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 324: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states,
  “Whoever, except in the case provided by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 341: This section defines the punishment for wrongful restraint. It states,
  “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.”
• Section 34: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states,
  “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.”

These sections are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the primary criminal code of India. The interpretation of Section 34, which requires a common intention to commit a criminal act, is central to this case.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the eyewitness accounts were inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding the specific roles of Mihir and Prabhat in the assaults.
• They contended that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the injuries sustained by the victims were caused by the weapons allegedly used by them.
• The appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to establish a common intention between them and Manohar Gope to commit murder.
• They highlighted the discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the specific acts of assault by each accused.
• They pointed out that the medical professionals stated that the injuries could have been caused by a fall, suggesting the possibility of an accident.
• The appellants relied on the fact that Usha Devi, who was accused of supplying weapons, was acquitted by the High Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the eyewitness accounts, despite minor discrepancies, consistently pointed to the involvement of Mihir and Prabhat in the assaults.
• The prosecution contended that the injuries sustained by the victims were consistent with the weapons used by the accused.
• They maintained that the appellants shared a common intention with Manohar Gope to cause harm, leading to the deaths of Anil and Jatu.
• The respondent emphasized that the Trial Court and the High Court had both found the appellants guilty based on the evidence presented.
• They asserted that the defense’s theory of accidental injuries caused by falling tiles was not credible.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for determination:

1. Whether the two appellants, Mihir Gope and Prabhat Gope, can be convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the evidence presented.

The court also considered the sub-issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the appellants shared a common intention with Manohar Gope to commit murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Manoj Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 7 SCC 327]*: The Court held that the ratio of this case did not apply to the facts of the present case. The appellants had relied on this case to argue for a lesser charge under Section 304, but the court did not find it applicable.
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court did not find the exception under this section applicable to the appellants.
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court did not find this section applicable to the appellants.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under this section, finding that the evidence did not prove a shared intention to commit murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove a common intention between the appellants and Manohar, which is necessary for conviction under this section.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court set aside the conviction under this section, finding that the evidence did not establish the intention or knowledge required for an attempt to murder.
• Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court set aside the conviction under this section, finding that the injuries caused were simple, not grievous.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court convicted the appellants under this section, finding sufficient evidence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
• Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court set aside the conviction under this section, finding no evidence of wrongful confinement.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts: The court noted significant discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies regarding the specific roles of Mihir and Prabhat in the assaults. The court observed that the eyewitness accounts were based on overall impression rather than factual narration of events.
• Lack of Proof of Common Intention: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that Mihir and Prabhat shared a common intention with Manohar to commit murder. The court emphasized that the individual acts of violence did not establish a pre-planned, collective intention.
• Medical Evidence: The court relied on the medical evidence, which indicated that the injuries could have been caused by a fall and that the injuries on Jatu’s head could not be said to have been caused by sharp-edged weapons. The medical evidence also showed that the injuries on Kasi Ram and Premchand were simple in nature.
• Individual Acts of Violence: The court emphasized that the acts of Mihir and Prabhat could be segregated from those of Manohar. The court found it safer to rely on the evidence of Kasi Ram (PW-12), who gave a specific and trustworthy account of the individual assaults.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, specifically the argument that the appellants’ actions could fall under exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and thus be punishable under Section 304. However, this interpretation was rejected because the court found no evidence to support it. The final decision was reached by carefully analyzing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles.

The court’s decision was based on the principle that for a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. The court found that this was not proven in the case of Mihir and Prabhat.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Aniruddha Bose, with Justices N.V. Ramana and Surya Kant concurring. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The depositions of the prosecution witnesses thus are not uniform on the aspect of the role of these two appellants in assaulting Anil and Jatu.”
• “We consider it safer to rely on the evidence of PW-12, who has given specific and trustworthy account of the individual assaults.”
• “We hold both the appellants guilty of committing offence under Section 324 of the Code.”

Key Takeaways

• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit a crime for a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Inconsistency in Evidence: Inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies can significantly impact the outcome of a criminal case. Generalized descriptions of events are not enough; specific and trustworthy accounts are necessary.
• Medical Evidence: Medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining the nature and cause of injuries. The court carefully analyzed the medical reports and expert testimonies to determine the nature of injuries and weapons that could have caused them.
• Individual Liability: Individuals can be held liable for their own actions, but not necessarily for the actions of others, unless a common intention is proven.
• Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Even if a charge of murder is not proven, individuals can be convicted for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if there is sufficient evidence of such actions.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment reinforces the importance of establishing a common intention for convictions under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• It highlights the need for a thorough and careful analysis of eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence in criminal cases.
• The decision may influence future cases involving multiple accused persons where the evidence is not clear on the specific roles of each individual.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the appellants, Mihir and Prabhat, had already served three years of rigorous imprisonment, they were to be set free immediately, unless their custody was required in any other case. Otherwise, they were to serve the remaining term of their sentence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a common intention between Mihir, Prabhat, and Manohar to commit murder. This case clarifies that individual acts of violence are not enough to establish a common intention, and the prosecution must provide clear evidence of a pre-planned, collective intention to commit the crime. The court also reiterated the importance of relying on specific and trustworthy accounts of individual assaults, as opposed to generalized descriptions of events. This decision reinforces the principle of individual liability and the need for specific evidence to prove common intention in criminal cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals of Mihir Gope and Prabhat Gope. The court set aside their convictions for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as their convictions under Sections 307, 325, and 341 of the Code. However, the court convicted them under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and sentenced them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment underscores the importance of proving a common intention for convictions under Section 34 and highlights the need for specific and reliable evidence in criminal cases.