Introduction
Date of the Judgment: September 12, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 821
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can allegations of witchcraft justify a brutal murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a woman was killed after being accused of practicing witchcraft. This judgment examines the culpability of the accused in the context of a pre-existing dispute and the subsequent fatal attack. The bench consisted of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, with the opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Case Background
The case originates from an incident on September 27, 1993, when Smt. Keshari Mahato was fatally attacked. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by her son, Lakshmi Mahato, at 8:45 a.m. It stated that the incident occurred around 6:00 a.m. when the five accused persons surrounded (gheraoed) Smt. Keshari Mahato and her daughter-in-law, Smt. Bijali Mahato, while they were returning from a pond. The accused were armed with weapons such as tangi, tabala, and lathi. Upon hearing their screams, Lakshmi Mahato and other family members rushed to the scene and found the accused assaulting Smt. Keshari Mahato on her head. She died on the spot, and the accused fled.
The police investigation included preparing an Inquest Report, seizing incriminating articles, examining witnesses, and preparing a sketch map of the crime scene. The post-mortem examination was conducted on the same day, and all the accused were arrested on October 4, 1993.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 27, 1993, 6:00 AM | Smt. Keshari Mahato attacked and killed. |
| September 27, 1993, 8:45 AM | FIR lodged by Lakshmi Mahato. |
| September 27, 1993 | Inquest Report prepared, witnesses examined, sketch map created. |
| September 27, 1993 | Post-mortem examination conducted. |
| October 4, 1993 | All accused persons arrested. |
| July 21, 2010 | High Court affirms the trial court’s conviction. |
| January 3, 2014 | Special Leave Petition granted by Supreme Court. |
| November 25, 2011 | Appeal against A-2, A-4 and A-5 dismissed. |
| October 28, 2022 | Detention certificates issued for A-1 and A-3. |
| September 12, 2023 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal of A-1 and A-3. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted all five accused persons under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000 each. The High Court affirmed this judgment on July 21, 2010. The accused then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which was granted on January 3, 2014. The appeal against accused A-2, A-4, and A-5 was dismissed on November 25, 2011, leaving the appeal concerning only A-1 (Bhaktu Gorain) and A-3 (Bandhu Gorain).
Legal Framework
The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses the punishment for murder.
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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.”
Arguments
Appellants’ Argument:
- The appellants argued that they did not have a common intention to kill the deceased.
- They claimed their intention was only to teach the deceased a lesson to prevent her from practicing witchcraft in the future.
State’s Argument:
- The State contended that there was a prior altercation between the parties on the previous night.
- The State argued that the accused assembled in the morning with reinforced vengeance.
- The State submitted that the accused surrounded (gheraoed) the deceased with deadly weapons, indicating a pre-planned attack with a common intention to kill.
- The State argued that the nature of injuries inflicted on the head of the deceased with deadly weapons proves their common intention was not merely to threaten her.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants was that they tried to reduce the charge of murder to a lesser charge of causing hurt, by stating that their intention was not to kill but only to teach a lesson.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants: No Common Intention to Kill |
|
| State: Common Intention to Kill |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:
- Whether the accused persons had the common intention to kill the deceased?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the accused persons had the common intention to kill the deceased? | The Court held that the accused had a common intention to kill the deceased. This was inferred from the prior altercation, the assembly of the accused with weapons, and the nature of the injuries inflicted. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following:
Legal Provisions:
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court analyzed this provision to determine if the accused acted with a common intention.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The court applied this section to determine the liability of each accused based on their common intention to commit the crime. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that they had no common intention to kill and only wanted to teach a lesson. | The Court rejected this submission, stating the prior altercation, the assembly with weapons, and the nature of injuries indicated a common intention to kill. |
| State’s submission that the accused had a common intention to kill. | The Court accepted this submission, stating the accused had a pre-planned attack with a common intention to kill. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court applied Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the common intention of the accused in committing the crime.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Pre-existing Altercation: The altercation on the previous night indicated a motive for the attack.
- Assembly with Weapons: The fact that the accused gathered with deadly weapons suggested a pre-planned attack.
- Nature of Injuries: The severe injuries inflicted on the deceased, particularly on her head, indicated an intention to kill, not merely to threaten or deter.
- Testimony of Witnesses: The consistent testimony of the eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, was found to be credible and reliable.
The court emphasized that the accused persons had surrounded (gheraoed) the deceased with a common intention to kill, and the injuries inflicted were sufficient to cause death.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Pre-existing Altercation | 25% |
| Assembly with Weapons | 30% |
| Nature of Injuries | 30% |
| Testimony of Witnesses | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on both the factual circumstances of the case and the application of relevant legal principles.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Did the accused have common intention to kill?
Evidence: Prior altercation, assembly with weapons, nature of injuries, eyewitness testimony.
Analysis: Evidence suggests pre-planned attack with deadly weapons.
Conclusion: Accused had common intention to kill. Conviction upheld.
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Bhaktu Gorain (A-1) and Bandhu Gorain (A-3), stating that the evidence clearly established their common intention to kill the deceased. The Court observed that the accused had surrounded (gheraoed) the deceased with deadly weapons, and the injuries she received were fatal. The court found no error in the trial court’s conviction or the High Court’s affirmation of the same.
The court stated, “The very fact that they had assembled in the morning and surrounded (gheraoed ) the deceased with deadly weapons is sufficient indication to infer that they had surrounded (gheraoed ) in a pre -planned manner with a pre -determined mind.”
The court also noted, “Moreover, the nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft.”
Furthermore, the court clarified, “Notwithstanding that two of the accused persons Bandhu Gorain (A-3) and Rajen Gorain (A-5) had no weapons with them or might not have assaulted the deceased but certainly they were part of the team that surrounded (gheraoed ) the deceased with the common intention to kill after they had an altercation with her the previous night on the subject of practicing witchcraft.”
The court also noted that the appellants had served considerable time in prison and were eligible to apply for remission. The court directed that any such application should be considered within three months.
Key Takeaways
- The judgment reinforces that allegations of witchcraft cannot justify murder.
- It highlights the importance of establishing common intention in cases involving multiple accused persons.
- The ruling underscores that prior altercations and the use of deadly weapons can be strong indicators of a pre-planned attack.
- The judgment also emphasizes the need to consider remission applications promptly and fairly.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants, Bhaktu Gorain (A-1) and Bandhu Gorain (A-3), were permitted to seek remission in accordance with the prevailing policy of the State. It was expected that any such application/representation made by them shall be duly considered on its own merits and decided within three months from the date of filing.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that when multiple accused persons surround and attack a victim with deadly weapons, and there is evidence of a prior altercation, it can be inferred that they had a common intention to kill, even if not all of them directly inflicted injuries. This case does not change any previous position of law, but it reaffirms the importance of considering the totality of circumstances to determine common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Bhaktu Gorain and Bandhu Gorain for the murder of Smt. Keshari Mahato. The Court found that the accused had a common intention to kill, evidenced by their actions and the circumstances of the crime. This judgment reinforces the principle that violence cannot be justified based on allegations of witchcraft and highlights the importance of establishing common intention in criminal cases.