Delve into the court’s detailed legal analysis regarding common intention in a land dispute assault case. The case involves multiple assailants, injuries, and witness testimonies, shedding light on the complexity of establishing guilt. Follow along to grasp the finer points of legal interpretation in this intriguing case.
Facts
- PW-1 purchased lands from the father of the appellant which led to the genesis of the occurrence.
- The accused threatened and assaulted PW-1, his wife, their son Ramashankar (who later died), and their daughter.
- The deceased Ramdas suffered injuries from a blunt weapon and firearm, while Ramashankar had incised wounds and fractures.
- The appellant did not share common intention with the other accused and was implicated at the village sarpanch’s behest.
- Accused no. 3 and no. 4 were also convicted under Section 302.
- The appellant, A2, challenged his conviction and sentence to life imprisonment and other lesser punishments.
- Ramdas was shot dead in the presence of his son PW-2 by co-accused A3 and A4 who were armed with a pistol and an axe respectively.
Also Read: Challenges with Dying Declarations in Legal Analysis
Arguments
- The learned Additional Advocate General argued that common intention can be inferred from the fact that all four accused arrived armed on the lands of PW-1.
- After failing to intimidate PW-1 into returning the lands, the accused proceeded to assault PW-1, PW-4, their daughter, and minor son.
- They then collectively went to the house of the second deceased, Ramdas, and also assaulted him.
- The appellant was aware that his co-accused were armed with a country-made pistol and an axe.
- The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and clothes of the appellant following his confession served as conclusive evidence of common intention.
- The appellant was displeased with the sale of lands by his father to PW-1 and desired them back.
- The four accused initially threatened PW-1 to return the lands, and upon refusal, A3 and A4 first attacked him with an axe.
Also Read: Promotion Dispute: Seniority-cum-Merit Principle
Analysis
- False implication evident due to related witnesses and lack of independent witness examination.
- Appellant’s involvement in the assault not certain.
- Injuries suggest multiple assailants.
- Corroboration of evidence by injuries with witness accounts.
- Reliability of injured witnesses and PW-2 established.
- Unlikelihood of false implication given relationship with deceased.
- Establishment of common intention from actions of accused.
- Inadequate consideration of appellant’s defence under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
- PW-2’s account as a credible eyewitness to the killing of his father.
- Quality of evidence over quantity of witnesses emphasized.
- Appellant’s alibi defense not properly evaluated.
- Examination of independent witnesses deemed inconsequential.
- The accused immediately proceeded to the house of the second deceased.
- The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and bloodstained clothes of the appellant on his confession.
- The evidence establishes that the accused were actuated by a common intention.
- The conviction of the appellant calls for no interference.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Essentiality Certificate and Medical College Establishment
Decision
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant has completed over 14 years of custody including remission.
- The appellant is 72 years old.
- Authorities may consider an application for premature release in accordance with law.
Case Title: ASHARAM TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2021 INSC 19)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000029-000029 / 2021
