/2022 INSC 0189/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.293 OF 2022
State of M.P.         ..Appellant(S)
Versus
Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr.                     ..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   13.12.2018   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   Bench   at   Gwalior   in   Criminal
Appeal   No.339   of   2006,   by   which,   the   High   Court   has
allowed the said appeal and has acquitted respondent No.1
and 2 herein – original accused No.1 and 3, for the offences
punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   the
IPC, by giving benefit of doubt, the State of Madhya Pradesh
1

has preferred the present appeal. 
2. As   per   the   prosecution   case   sometime   prior   to   8:30   in   the
morning   of   17.01.2002,   one   Devendra,   son   of   Bhagirath,
brother   of   deceased   Munshilal,   went   to   the   house   of
accused   Ramjilal   for   demanding   money   for   grinding   of
wheat   in   the   flour   mill   and   accused   persons   Mukesh   (A­4)
and   Brijesh   (A­3)   met   him.   When   Devendra   demanded
money, then, accused No.3 and accused No.4 assaulted him
with kicks and punches. Somehow, he rescued himself. The
said   incident   was   brought   to   the   notice   of   the   complainant
Laxminarayan. The brother of Devendra, namely, Ramgopal
and father Bhagirath, went to the house of accused persons
for   enquiring   about   the   scuffle.   All   the   accused   were   going
towards the  house of the  deceased Munshilal. While seeing
them, the cousin brother of deceased namely Laxminarayan
also   reached   the   door   of   Munshilal.   The   accused­Mukesh
was carrying 12 bore double barreled firearm, accused­Kallu
Brijkishore was carrying 12 bore single barreled firearm and
accused   Brijesh   alias   Sadhu   alias   Brijnandan   and   Ramjilal
were carrying axe. At that time, the deceased was returning
after   urinating   in   Goda   of   Ramswaroop.   All   the   accused
2

persons surrounded him. Accused­Ramjilal hit with the axe
on   Munshilal,   which   was   obstructed   and   held   by   the
deceased   and   thereafter,   accused   Mukesh   fired   from   his
firearm.   The   accused­Kallu   also   fired   from   his   firearm.   The
deceased   Munshilal   fell   down   in   the   Goda   of   Ramswaroop.
The entire incident was seen by eye witnesses including the
original   complainant   –   Laxminarayan   (PW­1).   When
Laxminarayan,   Devendra   and   Surender   put   Munshilal   on
the   Cot   (charpai)   to   take   him   to   the   Police   Station   but
Munshilal   died   while   he   was   being   taken   to   the   Police
Station.   The   complainant   Laxminarayan   got   recorded   the
First   Information   Report   of   the   incident   in   the   morning   at
9:20 against all the four accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 307, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled   Caste   and   Scheduled   Tribe   (Prevention   of
Atrocities)   Act.   The   Investigating   Officer   initiated   the
investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
He prepared the punchnama. He collected the post mortem
report/medical   evidence.   After   conclusion   of   the
investigation,   the   Investigating   Officer   filed   a   chargesheet
against   all   the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under
3

Sections   302,   307   and   34   of   the   IPC   and   Section   3(2)(5)   of
the   Scheduled   Caste   and   Scheduled   Tribe   (Prevention   of
Atrocities)   Act.   As   the   case   was   exclusively   triable   by   the
Court   of   Sessions,   the   case   was   committed   to   the   Court   of
Sessions.   The  accused   pleaded   not   guilty   and  therefore,   all
of  them  came to  be tried  by  the  learned Trial Court for  the
aforesaid offences. 
3. To   prove   the   case,   the   prosecution   examined   five   eye
witnesses   including   PW1,   PW3   and   PW5.   The   prosecution
also   examined   Dr.   R.K.   Taneja   as   PW6.   The   Investigating
Officer was also examined by the prosecution. After closure
of   the   evidence   on   the   side   of   the   prosecution,   further
statements   of   accused   under   Section   313   of   Cr.PC   were
recorded. Their case was of total denial. That thereafter, on
appreciation   of   evidence   on   record   oral   as   well   as   the
documentary,   the   learned   Trial   Court   held   that   all   the
accused  shared  the  common  intention  to   kill  the  deceased.
On   appreciation   of   evidence   on   record,   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 the accused to undergo life imprisonment with
4

a fine of Rs.5,000/­ each.     
 
3.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   of   conviction   the   accused   preferred
Criminal Appeal No.339/2006 before the High Court. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed
the   appeal   preferred   by   respondent   No.1   and   2   herein   –
original accused No.1 and 3, by giving them benefit of doubt
and by observing that there is a contradiction in the ocular
and the medical evidence and therefore their presence itself
is doubtful. 
3.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   acquitting
respondent No.1 and 2 herein – original accused No. 1 and
3,   by   giving   them   benefit   of   doubt,   the   State   has   preferred
the present appeal.   
4. Having   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective   parties   at   length   and   on   going   through   the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it
appears   that   while   acquitting   the   accused   the   High   Court
has observed in paragraph 14 as under: ­
“14.   After   hearing   the   arguments   and   going   through   the
record,   two   things   are   apparent;   one,   involvement   of
5

appellant   No.1   Ramjilal   Sharma   and   Appellant   No.3
Brajmohan @ Kallu is not made out as ocular evidence is not
corroborated by medical evidence given by Dr. Taneja (P.W.6)
and secondly, as far as appellant No.2 Brijkishore Sharma @
Kallu   is   concerned,   in   view   of   specific   finding   given   by   Dr.
R.K.Taneja (P.W.6), that cause of death was homicidal and it
occurred   because   of   injury   in   femoral   artery   as   well   as   gun
shot injury in lungs, it can not be said that femoral artery is
not   a   vital   organ.   Thus,   it   is   apparent   that   Kallu   shared
common intention, whereas presence of appellant No.1 and 3
is   doubtful.   Therefore,   appellants   No.1   and   3   should   have
been   extended   benefit   of   doubt   which   has   been   wrongly
denied by the trial court. When no independent witnesses are
examined   and   medical   evidence   is   not   corroborated   by   the
prosecution   story,   then   conviction   was   reversed   as   held   by
the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of   Lilia   Vs.   State   of
Rajasthan  as  reported   in  (2014)  16  SCC   303.  Therefore,   this
court finds that this is a fit cases to record acquittal in favour
of   appellants   No.1   Ramjilal   and   No.3   Brijnandan   @   Brijesh
Sharma. As far as conviction of appellant No.2 under Section
302 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it is clearly
made out.”
Except the above findings/reasoning no other findings
are recorded by the High Court. 
4.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court,   it   appears   that   what   has   weighed   with   the   High
Court is that there is discrepancy in the ocular evidence as
well as the medical evidence and/ or the ocular evidence is
not corroborated by the medical evidence and therefore, the
presence   of   accused   No.1   and   3   is   doubtful.   According   to
the   High   Court,   eye   witnesses   PW1,   PW3   and   PW5   stated
that   accused   No.1   and   3   were   having   axe   in   their   hands,
they attacked the deceased by their axe, however, as per the
6

medical evidence no such injury by axe is found. However, it
is required to be noted that PW1, PW3 and PW5 are all eye
witnesses to the incident and they are believed so far as the
other accused are concerned. It is also to be noted that right
from the very beginning of filing/lodging the FIR the names
of all the accused were disclosed. Accused No.1 and 3 were
also named in the FIR. All the eye witnesses are common in
saying that accused No.1 and 3 also came along with other
accused. Therefore, their presence has been established and
proved   by   the   prosecution.   Even   on   going   through   the
deposition   of   PW1,   his   case   was   that   Ramjilal   –   accused
No.1   first   hit   Munshilal   with   an   axe   which   was   caught   by
Munshilal with his hand.  If that be so naturally there could
not be any injury on the hand of Munshilal. Even PW5, who
is   also   one   of   the   witnesses,   has   also   deposed   and   stated
even   in   cross­examination   that   Ramjilal   hit   axe   and   that
Munshilal   caught   head   of   axe,   therefore,   axe   could   not   hit
Munshilal.   Therefore,   as   such   it   cannot   be   said   that   there
are   any   material   contradictions   in   the   ocular   and   the
medical  evidence  of which benefit  of doubt  should  be given
to the accused. 
7

4.2 Even otherwise once it has been established and proved by
the   prosecution   that   all   the   accused   came   at   the   place   of
incident   with   a   common   intention   to   kill   the   deceased   and
as such, they  shared the common intention, in that case it
is   immaterial   whether   any   of   the   accused   who   shared   the
common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any
of them caused any injury on the deceased or not.  
4.3 As   such   the   learned   Trial   Court   in   paragraph   35   gave
specific findings on the common intention shared by all the
accused   to   kill   the   deceased.   However,   the   High   Court   has
not   at   all   considered   the   aforesaid   vital   aspect   of   the   case.
The   High   Court   has   also   not   discussed   and/or   re­
appreciated the entire evidence on record and has acquitted
accused   No.1   and   3   by   simply   observing   that   there   are
contradictions   in   the   ocular   and   medical   evidence,   and
therefore   the   presence   of   accused   No.1   and   3   is   doubtful
and   therefore,  they   are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of   doubt.   As
observed   hereinabove   as   such   there   are   no   material
contradictions   between   the   ocular   and   medical   evidence.
The   presence   of   all   the   accused   have   been   established   and
proved   and   the   prosecution   has   also   been   successful   in
8

proving   that   all   the   accused   including   accused   No.1   and   3
shared   the   common   intention.   Therefore,   as   such   the
learned   Trial   Court   rightly   convicted   all   the   accused
including   accused   No.1   and   3   for   the   offences   punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High
Court   has   erred   in   reversing   the   conviction   and   acquitting
accused   No.1   and   3   –   respondent   No.1   and   2   herein,   by
giving them the benefit of doubt. 
5. 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   of   Madhya   Pradesh   in   Criminal
Appeal No.339/2006 in so far as acquitting respondent No.1
and 2 herein – original accused No.1 and 3 for the offences
punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   the
IPC   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   convicting
respondent No.1 and 2 herein ­ original accused No.1 and 3
for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   302   read   with
Section   34   of   the   IPC   is   hereby   restored.     The   sentence
imposed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   is   also   restored.   Now
respondents   herein   –   original   accused   to   undergo   the
9

remaining   sentence   as   per   the   judgment   and   order   of
conviction  and  sentence  passed  by  the  learned  Trial  Court.
Respondent   No.1   and   2   to   surrender   before   the   concerned
Jail authorities or Court within a period of four weeks from
today. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. 
 
…………………………………J.
  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
March 09, 2022
10