In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused in the case titled Madhusudan & Orss. versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, granting them the benefit of doubt. The bench, comprising of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Satish Chandra Sharma, identified two major legal problems: the altered charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were neither read out nor explained to the accused, and the prosecution failed to provide evidence demonstrating a ‘common intention’ among the accused.
Initially, the accused was charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 (Common Object) of the IPC. Subsequently, the charges were altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 (Common Intention). However, the alteration was not properly communicated to the accused, and the reasons for the change were not recorded in the judgment.
Drawing reference from the case of Rohtas v. State of Haryana, the Court noted the necessity for the prosecution to establish the existence of ‘common intention’ with relevant evidence when charges are altered from ‘common object’ to ‘common intention’. The Court further stated that ‘common object’ and ‘common intention’ are distinct legal concepts that cannot be equated.
The bench stressed upon the duty of the Court to thoroughly analyse and assess evidence before convicting an individual under Section 34 of the IPC. It observed that merely having a common intention is insufficient to attract Section 34 without action in furtherance of such intention. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the common intention of the appellants, and there was no discussion by the Court on this crucial aspect.
Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the accused and overturned their conviction to acquittal, citing the failure of the prosecution to prove ‘common intention’ and procedural flaws in the alteration of charges.
CASE NAME: Madhusudan & Orss. versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
NAME: KINJAL PANIGRAHY, COURSE: BBA LLB, COLLEGE: NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDDHIYA.
https://webapi.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/22628/22628_2009_6_105_52705_Order_02-May-2024.pdf
0 Comments