/2022 INSC 0052/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 2022
Mukesh                 ..Appellant(S)
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh             ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   24.09.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court  of   Madhya   Pradesh   at  Indore  in   Criminal   Appeal  No.
1244   of   2011   by   which   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the
said   appeal   and   has   confirmed   the   judgment   and   order   of
conviction  passed  by  the   learned  Trial  Court  convicting   the
accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read
with   Section   34   of   the   IPC,   original   accused   –   Mukesh   has
preferred the present appeal. 
1

2. That   an   FIR   was   lodged   by   one   Nanbai   –   wife   of   the
deceased  at  the  Police  Station  Nanpur,  alleging  that  on   the
Diwali night at about 10:00 or 11:00 pm the elder brother of
her  husband  (Jeth)  –  accused No.1  –  Sekadiya  and   his  son
Mukesh   –   accused   No.2   came   to   her   house   to   call   her
husband saying that there had been cooked ‘Murga’ in their
house.   According   to   the   complainant,   her   husband   –   Vesta
went along with accused No.1 and accused No.2. According
to   the   complainant   after   sometime,   she   heard   the   voice   of
crying/scream of her husband and she immediately rushed
to the house of her Jeth – accused No.1 – Sekadiya and she
saw   in   the   light   of   electricity   that   accused   No.3   –   Jethani
(wife   of   accused   No.1   –   Sekadiya)   had   caught   hold   her
husband  –  Vesta  and  accused  No.1  assaulted  her   husband
by   Axe   on   the   head,   due   to   which   Vesta   fell   down.     As   per
the case of the prosecution, the husband of the complainant
–   Vesta   died   due   to   injuries   from   the   axe.   According   to   the
prosecution   there   was   a   land   dispute   and   therefore   the
accused persons killed the deceased by calling  him  at their
house.   According   to   the   prosecution   the   accused   persons
2

committed   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   302   read
with   Section   34   of   the   IPC.   After   conclusion   of   the
investigation,   the   Investigating   Officer   filed   the   chargesheet
against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused
pleaded   not   guilty   and   therefore   all   of   them   claimed   to   be
tried   by   the   learned   Sessions   Court   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   the
IPC.   To   prove   the   charge   against   accused   the   prosecution
examined in all eight witnesses out of which Nanbai – PW1
was the eye witness. The prosecution also brought on record
the   documentary   evidences   including   the   medical   evidence
through   various   witnesses.   On   closure   of   the   evidence   on
the   side   of   the   prosecution,   statements   of   accused   under
Section   313   Cr.PC   were   recorded   in   which   the   accused
stated that  they  have been falsely  implicated in  the case at
the   instance   of  the   Sarpanch   due  to   enmity   of   election.  On
appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court held all the
accused   guilty   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section
302   read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC   and   sentenced   all   of
them to undergo life imprisonment. 
              
3

3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   accused   preferred
an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment
and order the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal
and   has   acquitted   the   original   accused   No.3   –   wife   of
accused No.1 (Jaithani), however, has dismissed the appeal
qua accused Nos.1 and 2. 
4. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   original
accused   No.1   and   2   preferred   appeals   before   this   Court.
Appeal qua accused No.1 – Sekadiya has been dismissed by
this   Court   earlier   vide   judgment/order   dated   12.01.2021,
therefore,   the   present   appeal   is   required   to   be   considered
qua accused No.2 – Mukesh – son of accused No.1. 
5. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties at length. We have also gone through the
findings   recorded   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the
reasoning given by the High Court while convicting Mukesh
–   accused   No.2   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section
302   read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC.   We   have   also   gone
through the deposition of PW1 – original complainant – eye
4

witness.   The   learned   Trial   Court   has   observed   while
convicting   the   appellant   –   accused   No.2   –   Mukesh   that   he,
along   with   his   father   went   to   the   house   of   the   deceased   to
call   him   for   dinner   as   they   had   cooked   ‘Murga’   and
thereafter accused No.1 inflicted the axe blows on the head
of   the   deceased   –   Vesta   and   thereafter   dead   body   was
dragged by Mukesh also, which was thrown in the courtyard
(Aangan  of  the house of  deceased) by  accused Mukesh  and
Sekadiya. The Trial Court has also observed that there was
a conspiracy hatched by all the accused to kill the deceased.
However,   from   the   deposition   of   PW1   –   eye   witness   it   does
not   appear   that   Mukesh   had   thrown   the   dead   body   in   the
Aangan   (courtyard).   As   such   except   the   fact   that   accused
No.1 and accused No.2 came to the place of the deceased to
call the deceased for dinner at their house and the deceased
went with accused No.1 and accused No.2 no further role is
attributed to Mukesh  – accused No.2. There is no overt act
alleged so far  as accused No.2 – Mukesh  is concerned. The
specific   role   and   overt   act   is   alleged   against   accused   No.1
and   accused   No.3.   However,   unfortunately   accused   No.3
has   been   acquitted   by   the   High   Court   against   which   no
5

appeal is preferred by the State as of today. Be that it may,
solely on the basis that appellant – accused No.2 – Mukesh
accompanied   with   accused   No.1   when   they   went   to   the
house   of   the   deceased   and   invited   him   to   dinner   in   their
house   by   that   itself   it   cannot   be   said   that   there   was   any
criminal   conspiracy   hatched   by   all   the   accused.   On   the
contrary, there are specific allegations against accused No.1
and   accused   No.3   only   and   as   observed   hereinabove   no
overt act at all is alleged so far as accused No.2 Mukesh is
concerned.   As   observed   hereinabove,   there   are   no
allegations even by PW1 that Mukesh had dragged the dead
body   and   thrown   it   into   the   courtyard   of   the   deceased.
Therefore,   the   finding   recorded   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
against   appellant   –   accused   No.2   –   Mukesh   that   he   also
dragged the dead body and thrown into the courtyard of the
deceased   is   not   supported   by   any   evidence.   Therefore,   we
are of the opinion that both, Trial Court as well as the High
Court have  committed a  grave error   in convicting  appellant
herein – accused No.2 – Mukesh for the offences punishable
under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   the   IPC.
6

Conviction   and   sentence   of   appellant   –   accused   No.2   –
Mukesh is hence unsustainable. 
12. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court
convicting   appellant   herein   –   Mukesh   –   original   accused
No.2   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   302   read
with Section 34 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. 
As   per   the   custody   certificate,   a   copy   of   which   has
been   placed   at   page   No.94   of   the   paperbook,   accused
Mukesh   is   presently   undergoing   sentence   in   Central   Jail,
Barwani,   M.P.   Since,   we   have   quashed   and   set   aside   the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence against him,
accused   Mukesh   be   released   forthwith,   if   not   required   in
any other case. The present appeal is accordingly allowed so
far as accused Mukesh is concerned.     
…………………………………J.
    (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
  (B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
January 18 th
, 2022
7