PARSHURAM versus STATE OF M.P.
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 186, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 186 : 2023 INSC 973
186
CASE DETAILS
PARSHURAM
v. 
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2021)
With
(Criminal Appeal No. 3416 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 03, 2023 
[B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA AND 
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justiﬁ ed in 
convicting and sentencing the appellants for the oﬀ ences punishable u/s. 
302/149, s.326/149, s.324/149, s.323/149, s.147 and s.148 IPC.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part II, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 
323/149, 147 and 148 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Accused persons 
formed an unlawful assembly when the buﬀ alo of the complainant party 
spoiled the taparia built by the accused, and thereafter grieviously 
assaulted the complainant and his members with deadly weapons, killing 
one of them – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for the oﬀ ences 
punishable u/s. 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 by the 
courts below – Tenability of:
Held: Inconsistencies in the evidence of two prosecuting witness 
being rustic villagers not fatal – Their evidence that the appellants were 
members of the unlawful assembly, though no speciﬁ c role attributed to 
them of assaulting the deceased – It is not necessary that such a person, for 
being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased – Trial court’s 
observation that no fatal weapons were used by the complainant party in 
assaulting the accused persons, whereas accused used fatal weapons, not 
correct
since injuries sustained by one of the accused was by a sharp weapon 
– Furthermore, witnesses are interested witnesses – Non-explanation of
187
injuries on the persons of the accused creates a doubt, on the prosecution 
case – Moreso, cross case was registered against the complainant party 
– Defence by accused that the complainant party started assaulting them 
resulting into a free ﬁ ght in which the persons from both the sides received 
injuries and one person of complainant’s side died – Entire incident arose 
on account of the happening on the previous day-buﬀ alo spoiling the 
taparia built by accused – No clarity as to whether the common object of 
the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the deceased – Prosecution 
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had 
an intention to cause the death of deceased – Appellants entitled to beneﬁ t 
of doubt – Thus, the conviction u/s. 302 not sustainable and altered to one 
under s. 304 Part-II – Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 
years. [Paras 15, 19, 20, 23-27]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 149 – Unlawful assembly – Scope and ambit 
of s. 149 :
Held: Every person constituting an unlawful assembly need not play 
an active role for convicting him with the aid of s. 149 – Prosecution has to 
establish that a person has to be one of the persons constituting the assembly 
and that he had entertained the common object along with the other members 
of the assembly, as deﬁ ned u/s. 141 – Whoever being aware of facts which 
render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, 
or continues in it, is said to
be a member of unlawful assembly. [Para 14]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 
262; Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133; Lakshmi Singh and Others v. 
State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394; State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Another 
1991 Supp (2) SCC 396; State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others (2003) 
9 SCC 426; Nagarathinam and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of 
Police (2006) 9 SCC 57 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.524 
of 2021.
PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2018 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in CRLA No.243 of 2005.
With
Criminal Appeal No.3416 of 2023.
Appearances:
A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Dhirendra Singh Parmar, AAG, Abhimanyu Singh, Yashraj Singh 
Bundela, Susheel Tomar, Pawan, Ms. Jyoti Verma, Bhagwanjee Thakur, 
Advs. for the respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1718 of 
2022.
2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 14th 
March 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 243 and 260 of 2005, whereby, 
the High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 30th March 2005, 
passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) 
(hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Sessions Trial No. 09/2002, 
convicting the appellants and sentencing them to imprisonment for life 
for the oﬀ ences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the oﬀ ence punishable under 
Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for six months for the oﬀ ence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 
149 of IPC, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months for the 
oﬀ ence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, and to 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the oﬀ ence punishable 
under Section 148 of IPC.
189
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under:
3.1 It is the prosecution case that the appellant Jalim Singh had 
constructed a shed (taparia) on the passage of the village which is used by 
the cattle. Since the said shed (taparia) was damaged by a buﬀ alo belonging 
to the complainant party, appellant Jalim Singh had beaten that buﬀ alo with 
lathi and drove that buﬀ alo away. Thereafter, appellant Jalim Singh, Ram 
Sewak @ Sewak, Ram Lakhan @ Lakhan, Ramrup @ Roopa, Ram Sahai, 
Parshuram (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2021) and Mangal 
Singh came to the house of Chironji (PW-6). On seeing this, Chironji (PW-
6) ran away from the house out of fear. Thereafter, accused persons broke 
the doors and entered his house. It is the prosecution case that the accused 
persons caught and beat Madan, Leelabai and Kailash. Thereafter, all the 
accused persons ﬂ ed from there. When Chironji (PW-6) came back to his 
house, he was informed about the incident.
3.2 It is further the prosecution case that on 6th October 2001 at 09.15 
am, when Chironji (PW-6), Madan (deceased), Raghuveer, Patiram (PW-13), 
Leelabai (died natural death during pendency of trial), Ramhet (PW-12), 
Gyani (PW-14) and Kailash (PW-15), from the complainant party were 
going on a tractor to the Police Station to lodge the complaint, the accused 
persons, armed with lethal weapons like barchi, sword, spear, lathi and 
country-made bomb (hathgola), waylaid them to cause
injuries to them. 
3.3 After intercepting the victims, Ram Lakhan who was carrying 
a barchi, stabbed Madan on the left side of his chest, as a result of which 
Madan fell down unconscious; thereafter, Ram Sewak @ Sewak, who was 
carrying a gupti, caused injuries to the complainant on the right side of his 
torso (Bakha), and gave another blow on his head; and thereafter, Ramrup 
@ Roopa who was carrying a sword, caused injury to the complainant on 
his shoulder. Other accused persons, including the appellants herein, who 
were also armed with lethal weapons, caused grievous injuries. 
3.4 The original First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) was 
registered for the oﬀ ences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452, 147, 
148 and 149 of IPC. However, on the death of Madan, the same came to be 
converted to the one under Section 302 IPC. 
PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
3.5 The accused persons were arrested, and after completion of 
investigation, the chargesheet was ﬁ led in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 
1st Class, Kolaras. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions 
Court, the case was committed to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, 
Shivpuri, on 10th January 2002. 
3.6 Before the trial court, the accused persons (in total nine), denied 
the charges levelled against them, stating that they have been falsely 
implicated because of a land dispute. Defence examined two witnesses 
and the prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses. Out of the twenty-
one prosecution witnesses, Chironji (PW-6), Ramhet (PW-12), Partiram 
(PW-13), Gyani (PW-14) and Kailash (PW-15) were injured eyewitnesses. 
3.7 The trial court, thereafter, framed ﬁ ve issues for its consideration 
in connection with the charges framed against the accused persons. Vide 
judgment dated 30th March 2005, the trial court held, that the evidence 
adduced by the prosecution proved that the accused persons Parshuram, 
Ram Sahai, Mangal Singh, Ram Lakhan, Ramrup @ Roopa, Ram Sewak 
@ Sewak and Jalim Singh, formed an unlawful assembly on the date of 
the incident and thereafter they grievously assaulted the complainant and 
his family members, thereby killing one of them in furtherance of the 
common intention of their unlawful assembly, using deadly weapons. The 
abovenamed seven accused were held guilty of the charges
under Section 
302 read with Section 149, Section 326 read with Section 149, Section 324 
read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149, Section 147 and 
Section 148 of IPC, and the remaining two accused, namely Diwan Singh 
and Siyaram were acquitted of the charges. 
3.8 Consequently, the trial court, after considering the facts and 
circumstances of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as 
aforesaid. All the sentences awarded to the accused were to run concurrently. 
3.9 Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the accused persons 
(Parshuram & Others), preferred Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2005, and 
accused Jalim Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2005 before the 
High Court. The High Court vide common impugned judgment and order 
dated 14th March 2018, dismissed both the criminal appeals and aﬃ  rmed the 
judgment and order of conviction as recorded by the trial court. Aggrieved 
thereby, the present appeals are ﬁ led by accused Parshuram and Jalim Singh.
191
4. We have heard Shri Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel appearing 
for the appellant-Parshuram in Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2021, Shri A. 
Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Jalim Singh 
in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022 and Shri Abhimanyu 
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of 
Madhya Pradesh. 
5. Shri Malhotra submitted that both the High Court and the trial 
court have grossly erred in convicting the appellants. He submitted that the 
prosecution has failed to attribute any speciﬁ c role to the appellants herein. 
In the absence of the same, he submitted that the conviction recorded under 
Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable. The learned counsel submitted that 
the role attributed to the present appellant Parshuram was only holding the 
lathi and as such, no injuries which had caused the death of the deceased, 
can be attributed to the appellant Parshuram. The learned counsel further 
submitted that two of the accused persons, who were attributed the role of 
holding hand-bombs, were acquitted by the trial court. As such, conviction 
of the present appellants was not sustainable. 
6. Shri Malhotra submitted that many accused persons had sustained 
injuries. These injuries were not at all explained by the prosecution. He 
submitted that the FIR which was lodged by the accused persons against 
the complainant party arising out of the same incident was prior in point of 
time. The learned
counsel, relying on a recent judgment of this Court in the 
case of Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh1, submitted that non-
explanation of injuries is fatal to the prosecution case and the appellants are 
entitled to be acquitted on the ground of non-explanation of such injuries.
7. Shri Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Jalim 
Singh in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022, also advanced 
arguments on the same lines.
8. Shri Singh, on the contrary, submitted that both the trial court and the 
High Court have concurrently found that the prosecution has proved its case 
beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that since the appellants were a part 
of the unlawful assembly, it was not necessary for the prosecution to attribute 
1 
  2023 SCC OnLine SC 262
PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
a speciﬁ c role to each of them. It is submitted that the object of the unlawful 
assembly was to kill the members of the complainant party and as such, no 
interference would be warranted in the ﬁ nding of conviction recorded by 
the trial court as aﬃ  rmed by the High Court. He further submitted that the 
injuries sustained by the deceased was on vital parts caused with deadly 
weapons. 
9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have 
perused the material placed on record.
10. Chironji (PW-6) is the ﬁ rst informant. He has narrated about the 
incident which had taken place on a day prior to the day of occurrence of 
the present incident. He has stated that, after the accused persons assaulted 
Madan, Lila (sic Leelabai) and Kamlesh (sic Kailash), when they were 
going on a tractor to the Police Station for lodging the complaint, they were 
waylaid by Mangal, Roopa, Sewak, Ram Sahai, Parshuram, Lakhan, Jalim, 
Diwan and Siya and 4-5 other persons. All of them stopped their tractor and 
thereafter hurled hand bombs. He further stated that Sewak beat with Gupti 
on his chest and also hit Gupti on his head. He stated that Roopa stabbed 
him with sword on his shoulder. He stated that Madan was stabbed in the 
chest by Lakhan with barchi, on which, he became unconscious. He stated 
that thereafter, they went to the Police Station. Madan died at 10.00 am. 
His evidence is corroborated by Ramhet (PW-12). 
11. Dr.
S.K. Majeji (PW-4) has performed autopsy on the deceased. 
Injuries sustained by the deceased are thus:
“Injury no. 1: Deep punctured wound l’’ X 1/2” X Lung Deep in the 
chest on the left side. The skin and muscles below this injury and left 
lung of the deceased had ripped apart because of this injury. The size 
of ripped lung was 1” X 2” X 2”; 
Injury no.2: Peeled wound 4” X l” in the center of the back; and 
Injury no.3: Peeled wound ½’’ X l/2” on left arm.”
12. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants that the 
testimonies of Chironji (PW-6) and Ramhet (PW-12) are not reliable 
inasmuch as there are material contradictions in their evidence. No doubt 
that there are certain inconsistencies in the evidence of Chironji (PW-6) and
193
Ramhet (PW-12). However, it is to be noted that the witnesses are rustic 
villagers and they cannot be expected to give minute details identical with 
each other.
13. The law with regard to conviction under Section 302 read with 
Section 149 of IPC has been succinctly discussed by a Constitution Bench 
of this Court in the locus classicus of Masalti v. State of U.P.2, wherein this 
Court observed thus:
“17. …….What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be 
a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons 
constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other 
members of the assembly the common object as deﬁ ned by Section 
141 IPC. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts 
which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins 
that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful 
assembly. In other words, an assembly of ﬁ ve or more persons actuated 
by, and entertaining one or more of the common objects speciﬁ ed by 
the ﬁ ve clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial 
question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted 
of ﬁ ve or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one 
or more of the common objects as speciﬁ ed by Section 141. While 
determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether 
the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive 
witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle
curiosity 
without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. 
It is in that context that the observations made by this Court in the 
case of Baladin [AIR 1956 SC 181] assume signiﬁ cance; otherwise, 
in law, it would not be correct to say that before a person is held to 
be a member of an unlawful assembly, it must be shown that he had 
committed some illegal overt act or had been guilty of some illegal 
omission in pursuance of the common object of the assembly. In fact, 
Section 149 makes it clear that if an oﬀ ence is committed by any 
member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object 
of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to 
2 
  [1964] 8 SCR 133
PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person 
who, at the time of the committing of that oﬀ ence, is a member of the 
same assembly, is guilty of that oﬀ ence; and that emphatically brings 
out the principle that the punishment prescribed by Section 149 is in 
a sense vicarious and does not always proceed on the basis that the 
oﬀ ence has been actually committed by every member of the unlawful 
assembly……..”
14. It could thus clearly be seen that the Constitution Bench has held 
that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly 
must play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of 
IPC. What has to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to 
be a member of an unlawful assembly, i.e. he has to be one of the persons 
constituting the assembly and that he had entertained the common object 
along with the other members of the assembly, as deﬁ ned under Section 141 
of IPC. As provided under Section 142 of IPC, whoever, being aware of facts 
which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that 
assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
15. Undisputedly, from the evidence of Chironji (PW-6) and Ramhet 
(PW-12), it is clear that the present appellants were members of the unlawful 
assembly. No doubt that there is no speciﬁ c role attributed to the present 
appellants of assaulting the deceased
Madan. However, since the appellants 
were members of the unlawful assembly, in view of the law laid down by this 
Court in the case of Masalti (supra), it is not necessary that such a person, 
for being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased.
16. Having held that, the question which we are left to answer is, as to, 
whether, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC would be tenable or not.
17. The defence taken by the appellants and the other accused persons 
was that in fact the accused persons had ﬁ rst lodged the complaint with 
regard to the attack made by the complainant party. It is their defence that 
after lodging the complaint, when they were coming back from the Police 
Station, the complainant party had come on a tractor and assaulted the 
accused persons. It is their contention that the accused persons tried to save 
themselves. As a result whereof, there was a free ﬁ ght resulting in injuries 
to the members of both the parties and unfortunately deceased Madan 
succumbing to the injuries.
195
18. It is to be noted that the defence side has also examined two 
witnesses. Ram Krishan Pandey (DW-1) is the police Constable who had 
registered the FIR lodged by one of the accused persons. Dr. Nisar Ahmed 
(DW-2), the Medical Oﬃ  cer, Shivpuri, who has deposed about the injuries 
sustained by accused Ram Sewak @ Sewak, Ram Lakhan and Ramrup @ 
Roopa. The injuries suﬀ ered by accused Ram Sewak @ Sewak are thus:
(i) 
Incised wound 7 cm X 1 cm on the deep bone on the front of the 
forehead;
(ii) Torn wound 3 cm X 1 cm was skin deep at the back and right 
side of the head.
(iii) Incised wound 4 cm X 2 cm was on the left shoulder posterior 
to the muscle depth;
(iv) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm/2 X 1 cm/ 2 cm on the outer and upper 
part of the left forearm;
(v) Incised wound 1 X 1 cm/ 2 X 1 cm was located on the left thumb;
(vi) Diﬀ use swelling in the upper left forearm;
(vii) Swelling of the right middle malleus and pain on pressure;
(viii) Diﬀ use swelling in the right thigh;
The injuries suﬀ ered by accused Ram Lakhan are thus:
(i) 
Diﬀ use swelling on the tendon in the back of the left leg.
The injuries suﬀ ered by accused Ramrup @ Roopa are thus:
(i) 
Cracked wound 6 X 1 cm blind skin deep in right parietal area 
of head;
(ii) The swelling and deformity in the lower part of the right forearm;
(iii) Swelling and pain on pressure in upper part of left scapula;
(iv) Diﬀ use swelling above the right knee.
19. Though the trial court has referred to the fact of the case being
registered against the complainant party for the oﬀ ences punishable under 
Sections 323, 341, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC, the trial court observed 
that no fatal weapons were used by the complainant party in assaulting the 
PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
accused persons. However, on the contrary, the accused persons had used 
the fatal weapons.
20. We do not ﬁ nd the said observation of the trial court correct. The 
injuries sustained by Ramrup @ Roopa is by a sharp weapon. It will be trite 
to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Lakshmi 
Singh and Others v. State of Bihar3:
“12. ……. It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of 
the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence 
or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from 
which the court can draw the following inferences:
“(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin 
of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries 
on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point 
and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the 
injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so 
as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.”
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on 
the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where 
the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where 
the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that 
of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it
must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries 
which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be 
diﬃ  cult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, 
more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating 
that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus 
neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given 
due consideration to this important lacuna or inﬁ rmity appearing 
in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this 
3 
  (1976) 4 SCC 394
197
Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 
SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases where the non-explanation of 
the injuries by the prosecution may not aﬀ ect the prosecution case. 
This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries 
sustained by the accused are minor and superﬁ cial or where the 
evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, 
so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the 
eﬀ ect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the 
injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the 
High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious 
inﬁ rmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.”
21. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries has 
been taken by this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Madho and 
Another4, State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others5, Nagarathinam 
and Others v. State Represented by Inspector of Police6 and recently in 
the case of Nand Lal (supra).
22. Undisputedly, in the present case also, the witnesses are interested 
witnesses. The injuries sustained by three accused persons are not at all 
explained. The trial court and the High Court have not considered this 
aspect of the matter.
23. Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would 
create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the 
real genesis of the incident or not. Undisputedly, as
observed hereinabove, a 
cross case was also registered against the complainant party for the injuries 
sustained by the accused persons.
24. The defence taken by the accused persons is that when they were 
coming back from the Police Station, it was the complainant party which 
started assaulting them resulting into a free ﬁ ght. Their further case is that 
in the said free ﬁ ght, the persons from both the sides received injuries. As 
a result of the injury caused in the said free ﬁ ght, Madan died.
4 
  1991 Supp (2) SCC 396
5 
  (2003) 9 SCC 426
6 
  (2006) 9 SCC 57
PARSHURAM v. STATE OF M.P.
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
25. From the material placed on record, it is also not clear as to whether 
the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the 
deceased or not. The entire incident arose on account of the happening on 
a day prior to the day of occurrence of the present incident, i.e. the buﬀ alo 
of the complainant party spoiling the taparia built by accused Jalim Singh. 
It is quite possible that the accused persons did not have an intention to 
cause death of anybody from the complainant party. It is possible that the 
accused persons only assembled to teach a lesson to the complainant party 
on account of the buﬀ alo from their party damaging the taparia of the 
accused Jalim Singh.
26. We are therefore of the considered view that the appellants are 
entitled to beneﬁ t of doubt. The conviction under Section 302 IPC would 
not be sustainable. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable 
doubt that the unlawful assembly had an intention to cause the death of the 
deceased. As such, we ﬁ nd that the case would fall under Part-II of Section 
304 of IPC. 
27. In the result, the appeals are disposed of with the following 
directions:
(i) 
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Part-II of 
Section 304 of IPC; 
(ii) The appellants are sentenced to suﬀ er rigorous imprisonment for 
7 years.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above 
terms.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeals
disposed of.
Nidhi Jain