Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Emphasizing Common Intention: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jad Bai (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 24, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 137
Judges: M.R. Shah, J and C.T. Ravikumar, J. The judgment was authored by M.R. Shah, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder even if they did not directly inflict the fatal blow? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the concept of ‘common intention’ in a case where a woman was accused of holding the deceased while her husband inflicted the fatal blow. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on a lack of proof of common intention. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and that active participation in an offense can establish shared intent.

Case Background

The case began with an FIR filed by Nanbai, the wife of the deceased, Vesta. She reported that on Diwali night, her husband was called to the house of his elder brother, Sekadiya (Accused No. 1), and his son, Mukesh (Accused No. 2), under the pretext of having cooked chicken. Nanbai stated that she later heard her husband screaming and rushed to Sekadiya’s house, where she saw Sekadiya’s wife, Jad Bai (the respondent/Accused No. 3), holding her husband while Sekadiya attacked him with an axe. Vesta died from the injuries sustained in the attack. The prosecution argued that a land dispute was the motive behind the murder.

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of Nanbai, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. The accused, including Jad Bai, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder with common intention.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found all three accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court upheld the conviction of Sekadiya and Mukesh but acquitted Jad Bai, stating that the prosecution failed to prove common intention. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Jad Bai.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 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 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 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.”

Section 34 of the IPC establishes the principle of joint criminal liability. It stipulates that if a criminal act is done by multiple individuals with a shared intention, each person is liable as if they had committed the act alone. This provision is crucial in cases where multiple individuals participate in a crime, and it is not always clear who performed which specific action. The section requires a common intention, which is a pre-arranged plan or a shared purpose. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this intention can form at the spur of the moment.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

• The State argued that the High Court erred in acquitting Jad Bai.
• The prosecution’s key witness, PW1 Nanbai, testified that Jad Bai held the deceased while her husband attacked him. This established her presence and participation in the crime.
• The State contended that Jad Bai’s failure to explain why she held the deceased in her Section 313 statement further indicated her involvement.
• Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Gurcharan Singh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1716, the State argued that common intention can be formed spontaneously during the incident.
• The State also cited Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 10 SCC 60, to support the conviction of Jad Bai under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

Arguments by the Amicus Curiae (Defense):

• The Amicus Curiae argued that the High Court’s acquittal should not be overturned.
• The defense pointed out that PW1 Nanbai did not see Jad Bai inflict any injuries on the deceased.
• The defense argued that Jad Bai’s action of holding the deceased did not establish a common intention to murder.
• The Amicus Curiae cited Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 3 SCC 241, and Ramashish Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555, to support the acquittal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the respondent – original accused No. 3 by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of common intention?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Rajasthan v. Gurcharan Singh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1716: The Supreme Court referred to this case to reiterate that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself.
• Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 10 SCC 60: This case was cited to support the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
• Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 3 SCC 241: This case was cited by the defense to argue that the acquittal should be upheld. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case on facts.
• Ramashish Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555: This case was also cited by the defense to support the acquittal, but the Supreme Court found it inapplicable to the present case.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s conviction of Jad Bai. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established Jad Bai’s participation in the crime and her shared common intention to commit the murder.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Rajasthan v. Gurcharan Singh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1716*: This case was followed to reinforce the principle that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment.
• Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 10 SCC 60*: This case was followed to support the conviction of Jad Bai under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
• Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 3 SCC 241*: This case was distinguished on facts and found not applicable to the present case.
• Ramashish Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555*: This case was also distinguished on facts and found not applicable to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Eyewitness Testimony: The Court placed significant weight on the testimony of PW1 Nanbai, the wife of the deceased, who witnessed Jad Bai holding the deceased while her husband attacked him. The Court emphasized that her testimony established Jad Bai’s presence and active participation in the crime.
• Common Intention: The Court underscored that Section 34 of the IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offense, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. The Court highlighted that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and that the actions of Jad Bai clearly indicated a shared intention to commit the murder.
• Lack of Explanation: The Court noted that Jad Bai did not offer any explanation in her Section 313 statement as to why she was holding the deceased. This lack of explanation further solidified the Court’s view that she was an active participant in the crime.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence (eyewitness testimony) and legal principles (common intention). The Court emphasized that Jad Bai’s actions, even if she did not directly inflict the fatal blow, were sufficient to establish her guilt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness Testimony is Crucial: The testimony of a credible eyewitness can be a decisive factor in establishing guilt.
• Common Intention Can Be Spontaneous: Common intention under Section 34 of the IPC does not require a pre-planned conspiracy. It can be formed at the spur of the moment.
• Active Participation Implies Shared Intention: Even if a person does not directly inflict the fatal blow, their active participation in the crime can establish a shared intention to commit the offense.
• Lack of Explanation Can Be Damaging: Failure to provide a reasonable explanation for one’s actions can be detrimental to the defense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Jad Bai to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within six weeks from the date of the judgment to serve the remaining sentence. Failure to do so would result in her being taken into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the presence and active participation of an accused in a criminal act, coupled with a lack of reasonable explanation, can establish a common intention to commit the offense, even if the accused did not directly inflict the fatal blow. This judgment reinforces the principle that common intention under Section 34 of the IPC can be formed spontaneously and that active participation is a key factor in determining shared intention. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has reinforced the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal of Jad Bai. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s conviction, emphasizing that Jad Bai’s participation in the crime, by holding the deceased while her husband inflicted the fatal blow, established her guilt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The judgment reinforces the principle that common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and that active participation in an offense can establish shared intent.