Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (21 August 2019)

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of an accused can be upheld under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when there is no direct evidence of the specific act that caused the death, but the accused shared a common intention to commit the crime.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Rameshwar and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Judgment Date: 21 August 2019

Date of the Judgment: 21 August 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 833

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder even if it’s not definitively proven that their specific action caused the death, but they shared a common intention with others to commit the crime? This was the question before the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the accused, Balaram, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC, based on the principle of common intention, even though it wasn’t clear if his specific gunshot caused the death of the victim. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Table of Contents

Case Background

On January 8, 1984, at around 10:00 am, Ram Autar was having his meal at his house when he went to the courtyard to drink water. At this time, Rameshwar, who had a rivalry with Ram Autar, arrived with a farsa (axe). Five other individuals, including Balaram, were also present, armed with rifles and danda (sticks), standing at the door of a neighbor, Kedar Seth. Rameshwar incited the others to kill Ram Autar and then attacked him with the farsa. Ram Autar tried to flee, but four individuals caught him. Rameshwar and another accused, Ram Bharosey, then joined them. Tejabai, Ram Autar’s mother, tried to protect him and was injured in the process. According to the prosecution, Rameshwar and Ram Bharosey held Ram Autar while Balaram fired a gunshot that hit Ram Autar’s back. Rameshwar also allegedly took a gun from another accused, Umacharan, and fired at Ram Autar. The accused fled when villagers arrived. Subhadra, Ram Autar’s wife, filed a complaint, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 452, 147, 148, 302, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Sections 11 and 13 of the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981.

Timeline

Date	Event
January 8, 1984	The incident occurred at 10:00 am. Ram Autar was attacked and fatally injured.
January 8, 1984	Subhadra, the wife of Ram Autar, lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 08/84.
April 23, 1984	Appellant No. 1, Rameshwar, was arrested.
June 25, 2008	The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench affirmed the conviction of the appellants.
August 21, 2019	The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment, upholding the conviction of appellant No. 2, Balaram.

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Rameshwar and Balaram under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. The court acquitted the other accused, including Umacharan, and also acquitted all the accused under the M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the prosecution had proven that the appellants shared a common intention to commit the murder. The High Court also held that it was not necessary to prove which of the two appellants fired the fatal shot. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 34 of the IPC 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 Supreme Court considered how these sections apply when multiple individuals are involved in a crime, and it’s not clear whose specific act caused the death.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Appellant No. 2 (Balaram):

The High Court erred in upholding the conviction by invoking Section 34 of the IPC.
There was no clear evidence of a prior agreement or meeting of minds to commit the crime.
The testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, and PW-7) were inconsistent and contradictory.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh):

The High Court rightly upheld the conviction based on the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses and other evidence.
The contradictions in the statements of PW-1 do not affect the prosecution’s case, as PW-1 clearly stated in her initial report that Balaram had fired upon the deceased.
The presence of Balaram at the scene, armed with a rifle, and his participation in the crime, demonstrated a common intention with Rameshwar.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions by Appellant No. 2	Sub-Submissions by Respondent
Applicability of Section 34 IPC	✓ No prior concert or meeting of minds. ✓ No clear evidence of common intention.	✓ Presence of appellant No.2 at the spot armed with a rifle. ✓ Appellant No.2 acted in concert with accused Rameshwar. ✓ Common intention to commit the crime was evident.
Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony	✓ Inconsistent and contradictory statements by PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, and PW-7. ✓ Trial court erred in basing conviction on inconsistent evidence.	✓ Contradictions do not affect the prosecution case. ✓ PW-1’s initial statement corroborated by PW-6 and PW-7.

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense argued that mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to prove common intention, especially when the eyewitness accounts are inconsistent. This was a key point that challenged the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of appellant No.2-Balaram by invoking Section 34 of the IPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision	Reasoning
Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of appellant No.2-Balaram by invoking Section 34 of the IPC?	Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision.	The Court found that the presence of appellant No.2 at the scene, armed with a rifle, and his actions in concert with Rameshwar, demonstrated a common intention to commit the crime.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly mention any authorities in the provided text.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How it was treated by the Court
Appellant No. 2 argued there was no prior concert or meeting of minds and the eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent.	The Court held that the presence of appellant No.2 at the scene with a rifle and his actions in concert with Rameshwar showed the common intention, thus negating the argument of no prior meeting of minds. The Court also held that the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses were not material to the case.
The State argued that the presence of appellant No.2 with a rifle and his actions in concert with Rameshwar showed a common intention to commit murder.	The Court accepted this argument, holding that the presence of appellant No.2 at the scene with a rifle and his actions in concert with Rameshwar showed the common intention.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

No authorities were cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the following points:

Common Intention: The presence of Balaram at the scene, armed with a rifle, and his actions in concert with Rameshwar, demonstrated a shared intention to commit the crime.
Eyewitness Testimony: The Court found the eyewitness accounts, despite minor inconsistencies, to be reliable in establishing Balaram’s presence and participation in the crime.
Section 34 of the IPC: The Court emphasized that Section 34 of the IPC applies when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.

Sentiment	Percentage
Common Intention	60%
Eyewitness Testimony	30%
Section 34 IPC	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	40%
Law	60%

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC. The Court held that the presence of Balaram at the scene, armed with a rifle, and his actions in concert with Rameshwar, showed that he shared the common intention to commit the crime. The Court also noted that the eyewitness accounts, despite minor inconsistencies, were reliable in establishing Balaram’s presence and participation in the crime.

Issue: Whether Balaram is guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC?

↓

Balaram was present at the scene, armed with a rifle.

↓

Balaram acted in concert with Rameshwar.

↓

The actions of Balaram and Rameshwar showed a common intention to commit the crime.

↓

Balaram is guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The Court considered the argument that the eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent but concluded that these inconsistencies were not material to the case. The Court emphasized that the presence of Balaram at the scene with a rifle and his actions in concert with Rameshwar showed the common intention and that it was not necessary to prove which of the two appellants fired the fatal shot.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the conviction of Balaram under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court found that the evidence presented established that Balaram shared a common intention with Rameshwar to commit the murder, and therefore, he was liable for the crime even if it was not definitively proven that his specific action caused the death. The Court quoted:

“When appellant No.2 has been proved to have acted in furtherance of the common intention, his conviction under Section 302 IPC was rightly affirmed by the High Court by invoking the aid of Section 34 IPC.”

There was no minority opinion in this case, as both judges agreed on the judgment.

Key Takeaways

Common Intention: Section 34 of the IPC can be invoked when multiple individuals share a common intention to commit a crime, even if it’s not clear whose specific action caused the final result.
Eyewitness Testimony: Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution’s case if the core facts are consistent.
Liability: Individuals can be held liable for a crime if they acted in furtherance of a common intention, even if their specific act did not directly cause the death.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that appellant No. 2, Balaram, must surrender within six weeks to serve the remaining period of his sentence. Failure to do so would result in his arrest.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendments analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that Section 34 of the IPC can be invoked when multiple individuals share a common intention to commit a crime, even if it’s not clear whose specific action caused the final result. This reaffirms the application of common intention in cases of joint criminal activity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Balaram, reinforcing the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment clarifies that individuals who share a common intention to commit a crime can be held liable, even if their specific actions are not directly linked to the fatal outcome. This case serves as a reminder that participation in a criminal act with a shared intention can result in conviction, even without direct proof of the specific act that caused the harm.

FAQ

Q: What does Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code mean?

A: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each person is liable for that act as if they did it alone. This means that if multiple people plan and commit a crime together, they are all equally responsible, even if they didn’t all perform the same specific action.

Q: What is the significance of “common intention” in a criminal case?

A: “Common intention” means that multiple people had a pre-arranged plan to commit a crime. If the prosecution can prove that the accused shared a common intention, they can be held liable for the crime, even if their specific actions did not directly cause the final result.

Q: Can someone be convicted of murder even if it’s not clear whose action caused the death?

A: Yes, if the prosecution can prove that multiple people shared a common intention to commit murder, they can all be convicted, even if it’s not clear whose specific action caused the death. This is because they are all equally responsible for the crime due to their shared intention.

Q: What if there are inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies?

A: Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution’s case. Courts will look at the overall reliability of the testimonies and whether the core facts are consistent. If the inconsistencies are not material to the case, the court may still rely on the testimonies.

Q: What was the final decision in the Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Balaram, one of the accused, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court found that Balaram shared a common intention with another accused, Rameshwar, to commit the murder, and therefore, he was liable for the crime.

Source: Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh