Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Land Dispute Murder Case: Asharam Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 January 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 21

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can a group of individuals be held liable for murder even if not all of them directly inflicted the fatal blows? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal concerning a land dispute that escalated into a violent assault resulting in two deaths. This case examines the concept of “common intention” under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and its application in cases involving multiple accused persons. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha, with the opinion authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute between the appellant, Asharam Tiwari (A2), and PW-1, who had purchased land from the appellant’s father. On October 23, 2006, at approximately 4:00 PM, the appellant, along with three other accused (A1, A3, and A4), went to the land of PW-1, demanding that the land be returned. Upon PW-1’s refusal, the accused persons assaulted PW-1, his wife (PW-4), their 12-year-old son Ramashankar, and their minor daughter. Ramashankar died within 24 hours due to the injuries sustained. Following this, the accused went to the house of Ramdas, the brother of PW-1, and fatally assaulted him.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Four accused persons, including the appellant, were put on trial. The trial court convicted the appellant, along with A1, A3, and A4, under Sections 302/34, 324/34, 325/34, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which 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.”

The court also considered Sections 302, 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which relate to punishment for murder, voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means and voluntarily causing grievous hurt respectively.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant was only armed with a lathi, while the co-accused had a country-made pistol and an axe.
• The deaths were caused by the axe and firearm, not by lathi blows.
• The allegation of assault with lathis was omnibus, and it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant also assaulted.
• The appellant did not share any common intention with the other accused.
• The appellant was falsely implicated at the behest of the village sarpanch.
• His defence of alibi was not considered properly.
• All three witnesses were related, and no independent witnesses were examined.
• The appellant’s defence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not properly considered.

State’s Arguments:

• Common intention is apparent as the four accused came armed together to the land of PW-1.
• Having failed in their threats to return the lands, all of them assaulted PW-1, PW-4, and their children.
• The accused then went together to the house of the second deceased, Ramdas, and assaulted him.
• The appellant was aware that the co-accused were carrying a country-made pistol and an axe.
• The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and clothes of the appellant pursuant to his confession establishes common intention.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused in the commission of the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The court considered the following:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court applied Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to the facts of the case. The Court held that the accused came together, armed, and threatened PW-1. They then assaulted PW-1 and his family, and subsequently, Ramdas. The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and clothes of the appellant further established common intention.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Common Intention: The fact that the accused persons came together, armed, to the land of PW-1, and subsequently assaulted him and his family, indicated a pre-arranged plan and common intention.
• Nature of Injuries: The number and nature of injuries on the deceased, including those inflicted by hard and blunt objects, corroborated the evidence of the injured witnesses and PW-2 regarding the use of lathis.
• Reliability of Witnesses: The Court found the injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) and the eyewitness (PW-2) to be reliable and truthful. The Court found no reason why they would falsely implicate the appellant, especially since the deceased was their own minor son.
• Recovery of Evidence: The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and bloodstained clothes of the appellant, pursuant to his confession, further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The court reasoned that the appellant was an active participant in the assault, and his presence and actions contributed to the commission of the crime. The court rejected the argument that the appellant was only armed with a lathi and did not share the common intention to commit murder, stating that “Common intention is evident from the accused persons coming to the lands of PW­1 armed and intimidating him to return the lands followed by assault upon him and those who came to his rescue. The accused then immediately proceeded to the house of the second deceased.” The Court also emphasized that “It is the quality of the evidence and not the number of witnesses that is relevant.”

Key Takeaways

• Common Intention: The judgment reinforces the principle that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable as if the act was done by them alone, as per Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Importance of Evidence: The quality of evidence is more important than the number of witnesses. The testimony of reliable and truthful witnesses can be sufficient for conviction.
• Cumulative Appreciation of Evidence: The Court emphasized the need to consider all evidence cumulatively to determine the guilt of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the appellant makes an application for premature release, the authorities should consider it in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The judgment reiterates the established principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The ratio decidendi of the case is that if a group of people come together with a common intention to commit a crime, each of them is liable for the crime as if they had committed it alone. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The Court found that the appellant shared a common intention with the other accused in the assault that led to the deaths of two individuals. The judgment emphasizes the importance of common intention in establishing criminal liability and the reliability of witness testimony in such cases.