Asharam Tiwari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Background
A land dispute led the appellant, unhappy that his father had sold land to the complainant (PW-1), to go with three other men to demand the land back. When the complainant refused, the group assaulted him, his wife and children with a lathi, an axe and a country-made pistol; his 12-year-old son later died of his injuries. The group then went to the house of the complainant's brother and killed him too, with an axe and a firearm, in front of his son who witnessed the attack. The appellant, who was armed only with a lathi (not the axe or pistol that caused the fatal wounds), was convicted of murder and other offences with the aid of "common intention," and appealed that conviction to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that common intention could be clearly inferred from the fact that all four accused came armed together, jointly threatened and assaulted the victims, and then moved together to attack the second victim: the appellant did not need to have personally inflicted the fatal blows for common intention liability to attach. The Court found the injured eyewitnesses (the complainant and his wife) and the son who witnessed his father's killing to be reliable and consistent, noting that their relationship to the victims did not undermine their credibility since the quality, not quantity, of evidence matters, and the recovery of the appellant's bloodstained lathi and clothes on his own confession further supported the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, though the Court noted that if the appellant (now 72 and having served over 14 years with remission) applied for premature release, the authorities should consider it according to law.
Lesson Learnt
Under the principle of "common intention" in criminal law, a person who participates in a group attack can be convicted of murder even if another member of the group struck the actual fatal blow, as long as the group shared a common plan and acted together in furtherance of it.