Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Duleshwar & Anr. vs. State of M.P. (21 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 47
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a group of individuals be held responsible for a murder if they were part of an unlawful assembly, even if not all of them directly participated in the killing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving multiple accused persons convicted for rioting and murder. The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the formation of an unlawful assembly and the individual involvement of each accused in the crime.

This judgment, delivered by Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, examines the evidence presented against several appellants who were convicted for offenses including rioting and murder. The court analyzes the testimonies of various witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the death of one Govind Singh, to determine if the convictions were justified. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case stems from a dispute over land between Biselal Sahu, brother of Mangalram (A-14), and Dhanwaram (PW-1), the brother of the deceased Govind Singh. This ongoing conflict led to two violent incidents on October 15, 1998, in Kodebod village, Chhattisgarh.

The first incident occurred around 4:30-5:00 PM when Dhanwaram (PW-1) was attacked by several individuals including Bharosaram (A-1), Duleshwar (A-2), Chintaram (A-4), Khemraj (A-6), Vivekanand (A-9), and Kedarnath (A-18). Dhanwaram sustained grievous injuries during this assault. Parvati Bai (PW-6), witnessed the attack and alerted Khilawan (PW-7), the son of Govind Singh.

Later, around 5:30 PM, a second incident took place where Govind Singh was assaulted near Kalley Bridge by a group including Bharosaram, Chintaram, Khemraj, Bhanjan Singh, and Khemuram. Despite attempts by Santosh Kumar (PW-2) and Prahlad Yadav (PW-5) to intervene, they were threatened. Govind Singh was then dragged towards a canal and brutally beaten to death.

Khilawan (PW-7) reported the incidents to the police around 7:00 PM, leading to the registration of FIR No. 186/1998. The police investigation included post-mortem examination of Govind Singh, injury reports for Dhanwaram, and seizure of weapons and clothing.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court framed six points for determination, including whether Govind Singh was murdered, whether there was an attempt to murder Dhanwaram, and whether the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common intention to commit the acts.

The Trial Court convicted Bharosaram (A-1), Duleshwar (A-2), Chintaram (A-4), and Vivekanand (A-9) under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing grievous hurt to Dhanwaram. Additionally, Bharosaram (A-1), Duleshwar (A-2), Chintaram (A-4), Bhanjan Singh (A-5), Khemraj (A-6), Keshav Prasad (A-7), Khemuram (A-8), Nand Kumar (A-12), and Lakhan (A-13) were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302, and 302/149 of the IPC for rioting, unlawful assembly, and murder.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, dismissing both the appeals filed by the convicts and the revision petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of other accused persons. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court’s decision, affirming the convictions and sentences.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offense.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 325, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

The legal framework is rooted in the principle that members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for the actions of the group if those actions are in furtherance of the assembly’s common objective. The prosecution must prove the existence of an unlawful assembly and the common intention of its members.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the eye-witnesses made general statements about the assault on Govind Singh without specifically naming each accused. They contended that such vague statements are insufficient to prove individual culpability.
• They cited Chandra Shekhar Bind and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 4024) to emphasize that convictions in cases involving a large number of offenders should be based on consistent accounts from two or more witnesses.
• The appellants also relied on State of Rajasthan v. Sheeshpal (AIR 2016 SC 4958), arguing that when two views are possible based on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be accepted.
• In the alternative, the appellants argued that even if the accusation against Bharosaram (A-1) was established, his conviction could be altered to that under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and his sentence reduced to the period already undergone, while the other appellants should be acquitted.

Respondent State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Trial Court and High Court had thoroughly examined all arguments, and the judgments did not suffer from any infirmity.
• They contended that all accused appellants were identified by eye-witnesses, particularly PW-5, who specifically named them.
• The State relied on Paulmeli v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2014) 13 SCC 90), stating that even the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected entirely if corroborated by other evidence.
• They also referred to Lala Ram (D) through Duli Chandi v. State of Haryana ((1999) 9 SCC 525) and Kallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2006) 10 SCC 313), arguing that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the prosecution’s case.
• The State cited Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ((1978) 4 SCC 435), arguing that the recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapons from the accused further corroborates their involvement.
• Finally, they referred to Lalji v. State of UP ((1989) 1 SCC 437), stating that once an unlawful assembly is established, every member is liable, and specific proof of individual roles is not required.
• The State clarified in written submissions that Nand Kumar (A-12) was not named in the testimony of eye-witnesses.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the formation of an unlawful assembly was established.
2. Whether the appellants were members of such unlawful assembly.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the individual culpability of each appellant in the murder of Govind Singh.
4. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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?

The Court relied on Masalti v. State of U.P. to emphasize that the quality of evidence is more important than the number of witnesses. It used Chandra Shekhar Bind to set the standard for consistent accounts from multiple witnesses but clarified that consistency does not require verbatim repetition. The court also used Paulmeli v. State of Tamil Nadu to highlight that even hostile witnesses can provide valuable evidence. Lala Ram and Kallu were used to show that minor discrepancies in testimonies are natural and do not invalidate the prosecution’s case. Madan Singh was used to show that the recovery of blood-stained items is corroborative evidence. Finally, Lalji v. State of UP was used to emphasize that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable.

The court rejected the appellants’ reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Sheeshpal, finding that for most appellants, the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the consistent testimonies of key witnesses, particularly PW-5 Prahlad Yadav, who specifically named several of the accused. The court also gave weight to the corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothing. The court emphasized that the formation of an unlawful assembly and the common intention of its members to cause harm were clearly established. The brutal nature of the assault and the extensive injuries on the deceased Govind Singh further solidified the court’s conviction that the intention of the assailants was to cause death.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual elements, such as the witness testimonies and the evidence of the assault, formed a significant part of the court’s decision. The legal considerations, such as the concept of unlawful assembly and the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also played a crucial role.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, finding that the evidence clearly established the guilt of the appellants. The court also noted that the manner of execution of the object by the assembly, including dragging of the deceased by legs and merciless thrashing, left no doubt that the intention was to cause death.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The consistent testimonies of eye-witnesses, particularly PW-5, who specifically named several of the accused.
• The corroborating evidence of blood-stained weapons and clothing.
• The established formation of an unlawful assembly.
• The brutal nature of the assault and the extensive injuries sustained by the deceased.
• The lack of a convincing alternative explanation from the accused.

The court held that the convictions under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were justified for the appellants Bharosaram (A-1), Duleshwar (A-2), Bhanjan Singh (A-5), Keshav Prasad (A-7), and Nand Kumar (A-12).

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “In a comprehension of the evidence on record, in our view, the fact that a large assembly was indeed formed, where the members were armed with weapons including lathis and tangiyas and they indulged in assault over Govind Singh, is evident on the face of record with the consistent testimonies of the eye-witnesses PW-2 Santosh Kumar, PW-3 Bhuwan, PW-4 Rajesh and PW-5 Prahlad Yadav.”
• “The manner of causing death of Govind Singh makes it clear that the intention of assailants forming such assembly had only been to cause death and the acts were done with that intent alone.”
• “In the given set of facts and circumstances, in our view, it is established beyond doubt that this accused Bharosaram (A-1) had been the member of the assembly that attacked and thrashed the deceased Govind Singh.”

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Bharosaram (A-1), Duleshwar (A-2), Bhanjan Singh (A-5), Keshav Prasad (A-7), and Nand Kumar (A-12) under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found sufficient evidence to establish their membership in the unlawful assembly and their involvement in the murder of Govind Singh.

However, the court acquitted Khemuram (A-8) and Lakhan (A-13), giving them the benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence linking them directly to the crime.

The court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted appellants and affirmed the judgment of the High Court, with the exception of the acquittal of Khemuram (A-8) and Lakhan (A-13).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Duleshwar & Anr. vs. State of M.P. underscores the principle of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly. The court emphasized that once an unlawful assembly is established, every member is liable for the actions of the group, provided those actions are in furtherance of the assembly’s common objective. The judgment also reiterates the importance of consistent and credible witness testimonies and the significance of corroborating evidence in proving guilt.

This case serves as a reminder that even in cases involving multiple accused persons, individual culpability can be established through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The court’s detailed analysis of the facts, the legal provisions, and the arguments presented by both sides highlights the meticulous approach taken by the judiciary in ensuring justice is served.

The judgment reaffirms the legal principle that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the prosecution’s case and that the testimony of even a hostile witness can be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. This case also highlights the importance of the recovery of material evidence, such as weapons and blood-stained clothes, in establishing guilt.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case demonstrates a commitment to upholding the rule of law, ensuring that those who participate in violent acts are held accountable, while also protecting the rights of the accused by acquitting those where evidence is insufficient.