The Supreme Court of India upheld the life imprisonment of four individuals convicted for the murder of Balkishan, the Chairman of a Watershed Committee, in the year 2000. A Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the appeals, ruling that mere presence as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if no specific overt act is imputed to every individual.
Background of the Case
The incident took place on the morning of June 3, 2000, at the Tihuli bus stand. The deceased, Balkishan, was waiting to travel for a Watershed Committee meeting when six accused persons alighted from a bus armed with firearms.
The prosecution established that the main accused, Vikram (who remains absconding), fired the first shot from a mouser, hitting the deceased in the left hand. Balkishan fled towards the village to save his life and entered the house of an independent witness, Rattan Lal (PW-6). The accused persons chased him inside, dragged him to the courtyard, and shot him at point-blank range in the temple, resulting in his immediate death.
Out of the six original accused, Govind Singh died during the proceedings, and Vikram remains absconding. The remaining four accused—Dablu, Kamlesh, Pratap alias Pratap Narayan, and Vinod alias Ajay—appealed their convictions under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments: Counsel for the appellants argued that the incident occurred in two parts—first at the bus stand and second at the house of Rattan Lal. They contended that there was no reliable eyewitness to the second part of the incident, as Rattan Lal merely heard the shots and did not see the accused firing. The defense further argued that the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased and therefore interested witnesses whose testimonies contained material contradictions.
Additionally, the appellants emphasized that no weapons were recovered from them, the forensic evidence was inconclusive, and the prosecution failed to establish their participation through any specific overt act to attract vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC. They also alleged procedural lapses in the investigation, specifically non-compliance with Sections 157 and 174 of the CrPC.
State’s Arguments: Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh countered that a long-drawn political rivalry existed between the main accused Vikram and the deceased, providing a clear motive. The wives of both men had contested a panchayat election in 1994, where the deceased’s wife emerged victorious. The State argued that all the accused alighted from the same bus armed with firearms, indicating a common motive and making them a part of an unlawful assembly vicariously liable for the murder.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the testimonies and the applicability of Section 149 IPC. The Court found that the long-standing political rivalry was well-established by the testimonies of the deceased’s brother and nephews.
Addressing the core legal issue of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, the Court observed that two elements are essential: an “unlawful assembly” and a “common object.” The Court held:
“The presence of the accused persons as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction even if no overt act is imputed to each one of them individually.”
The Court further noted:
“The movement of the accused persons in the above manner is sufficient enough to draw an inference that they had a common object.”
The Bench reasoned that the fact that all the accused alighted from the bus together, armed with firearms, proved they shared a common object. The Court dismissed the defense’s argument regarding the lack of eyewitnesses to the actual shooting inside the house, noting that the independent witness hearing the shots and the recovery of empty 12-bore cartridges from the courtyard corroborated the prosecution’s story that the accused chased the deceased and fired multiple shots.
The medical evidence, provided by Dr. V. K. Diwan (PW-1), confirmed that Balkishan suffered multiple gunshot wounds and approximately 40 pellets were recovered from his body, further cementing the involvement of the armed assembly.
The Court also rejected the argument regarding the unnatural behavior of the relatives who witnessed the crime but took no steps to save the deceased, stating that this alone could not discard their consistent evidence. Claims regarding procedural lapses under Section 157 CrPC were dismissed as the defense failed to summon the magistrate’s record to prove them. Lastly, the Court observed that the fact that the main accused, Vikram, is still absconding indicates a “subconscious mind” accepting guilt.
Decision
Finding no illegality in the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The conviction and life sentences of the four appellants were upheld, and they were directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining part of their sentences.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dablu Etc. vs State of Madhya Pradesh (with Vinod @ Ajay vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011 & Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
- Date of Judgment: March 11, 2026
