RAJKISHORE PUROHIT versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 501, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 501 
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1292 of2017) 
AUGUST 01, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.J 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss.302134 - Political rivalry - Four accused - Deceased 
C 
campaigning for removal of accused - Accused annoyed with the 
summoning of meeting called by deceased to protest for removal of 
A-3 from the post of Mayor - All accused came to place of meeting 
in car - A-2 was armed with gun - He fired at the deceased while 
others provided cover - Trial court convicted A-2 uls.302 while 
convicting others u/ss.302134 - Acquittal of accused-respondent D 
no.2 by High Court on the ground that no overt act of assault was 
attributed to him and that he was not armed - Appeal against 
acquittal by brother of the deceased - Held: Motive for assault 
existed because accused were aggrieved by the meeting summoned 
- The sequence of events, and the manner in which the occurrence 
E 
took place, manifested a pre-concerted plan and a prior meeting of 
minds - it was not the case of respondent no.2 that he was taken by 
surprise and was unaware that the co-accused was carrying a 
revolver or that they had no intention to kill the deceased - Common 
· intention by meeting of minds is established in the facts and 
circumstances of the case - Absence of overt act or possession of F 
weapon was not fatal to the prosecution case against respondent 
no.2 - Order of conviction passed by trial court
restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The evidence of PWs 1, 4, 5, 13 and 23 were 
G 
consistent that the four accused came together and alighted from 
a car. Accused no.3 identified the deceased. Respondent no. 2, 
along with accused nos.2 and 4 moved forward towards the 
deceased. Accused no.4 and respondent no.2 then exhorted to 
501 
H
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A kill the deceased, at which stage accused no.2 pulled out a revolver 
and fired at the deceased. In the melee that followed the shooting, 
the accused persons fled together in the car. The appellant, PW-I 
was the brother of the deceased and PW-5, the brother-in-law. 
There is no reason why they should be lying and falsely naming 
B 
another as the assailants, shielding the real accused, especially 
when they were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Respondent 
no.2 has not urged false implication, and on the contrary took the 
defence of alibi, which has been disbelieved by the trial court and 
affirmed by the High Court: The taking of a false plea is an 
additional aggravating factor against the accused. [Para 9) [505-
C G-H; 506-A-BJ 
D 
E 
F 
2. Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible 
to read a person's mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of 
common intention. The existence or non-existence of a common 
intention amongst the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively 
from their conduct and behavior in the facts and circumstances 
of each case. Events prior to the occurrence as also after, and 
during the occurrence, are all r~levant to deduce jf there existed 
any common intention. There can be no straight jacket formula. 
The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession 
of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of 
common intention. [Para IOI [506-CJ 
3. Motive for the
assault existed because the accused 
were aggrieved by the meeting summoned. The assault was 
planned in a gathering, where escape would have been easy, in 
the chaos that would follow the assault. The accused persons 
came together in a car to facilitate a quick get-away. Exhortation 
was made by respondent no.2, when the accused were at very 
close quarters to the deceased. The firing was done from a 
distance of about 6 inches. The respondent no.2 and accused 
no.4 provided cover at this time. There is nothing in the conduct 
G of respondent no.2 to draw any inference that he was taken by 
surprise, when the co-accused opened fire. Rather than provide 
help to the deceased and his relatives, respondent no.2 
immediately escaped from the place of occurrence in the chaos 
that followed, indicative of his awareness of the common intention. 
H The sequence of events, and the manner in which the occurrence
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
503 
AND OTHERS 
took place, manifests a pre-concerted plan and a prior meeting A 
of minds. It was not the case of respondent no.2 that he was 
taken by surprise and was unaware that the co-accused was 
carrying a revolver or that they had no intention to kill the 
deceased. If common intention by meeting of minds is established 
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there need not be an 
B 
overt act or possession of weapon required, to establish common 
intention. (Para 121 [506-H; 507-A-DI 
4. Though this Court, in exercise of discretionary 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, may not 
interfere with an order of acquittal, reversing a conviction, yet if 
it finds that the High Court has completely erred in appreciation 
C 
of evidence, has applied the wrong principles to negate common 
intention, and has based its conclusions on speculative reasoning, 
beyond the defence of the accused himself, justice will demand 
that the acquittal is reversed. The order of acquittal passed by 
the High Court is set aside and the order of conviction of D 
respondent no.2 under Section 302/34 IPC passed by the Sessions 
Judge is restored. (Para 14] (507-F-Hl 
State of Rajasthan v. Shobha Ram (2013) 14 SCC 732 
: 12013) 1 SCR 327; Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of 
Tamil Nadu (1976) 3 SCC 779 : [19761 Suppl. SCR 
E 
580 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(2013] 1 SCR 327 
(1976) Suppl. SCR 580 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 11
Para 13 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No.1292 of2017. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2014 of the High 
G 
Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal 
No. 2816 of2000. 
S.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., D.S. Parmar, Ms. Radhika Dwivedi, 
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. 
H
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Ms. Prachi Mishra, C.D. Singh, Ms. Pragya Garg, Chaitanya, 
B 
c 
Ms. Ehtesham Hashmi, S. K. Verma, B. S. Rajesh Agrajit, Sanjay 
Samdarshi, Ms. Jyoti Rana, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The conviction ofrespondent no.2, under Section 302/34 IPC, 
by the Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 369 of 1997, has 
been reversed by the High Court in appeal, acquitting him. The appellant, 
brother of the deceased, assails the acquittal. 
3. Lokman Khatik, accused no.3, was peeved with the meeting 
being held for his removal from the post of Mayor. The deceased was 
the President of the Congress Sewa Dal, spearheading the campaign. 
The trial court from the evidence arrived at the finding that all the four 
accused came together to the place of occurrence in a white ambassador 
D 
car. Accused no.3 identified the deceased to Jitendra@ Jittu, accused 
no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.2 accompanied by the latter and accused 
no.4, Bhupendra, proceeded towards the deceased. Accused no.2 took 
out a revolver from his waist and fired at the deceased while the other 
two accused provided cover. All the four accused then left the place of 
E 
occurrence in the ambassador car. The deceased died on the way to the 
hospital. The plea of alibi by respondent no.2 was disbelieved. 
F 
4. Accused no.2 was convicted under Section 302, IPC to
Life 
imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 
25(l)(a) of the Arms Act. He is stated to have served out his sentence. 
Respondent no.2 and the other accused were convicted to Life 
imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC. 
5. The High Court, in the appeal preferred by respondent no.2, 
acquitted him, on the reasoning that no overt act of assault was attributed 
to him, neither was he armed, much less gave any exhortation. His mere 
G 
presence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction, attributing common 
intention. It was further reasoned that respondent no. 2 may have had 
no knowledge that accused no.2 was carrying a revolver. 
6. The submission on behalf of the appellant was that the High 
Court has grossly erred in acquitting respondent no.2. There existed 
sufficient evidence to- decipher common intention. Overt act by a 
H
• 
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.] 
co-accused or possession of weapons by him was not necessary to 
conclude the existence of common intention. There has been inadequate 
appreciation of evidence to erroneously conclude lack of common 
intention. A well reasoned order of the Trial Court has erroneously been 
set aside on a presumptive reasoning based on conjectures and surmises 
beyond the defence ofrespondent no.2 himself, that he may have been 
unaware of the fact that the co-accused was possessed of a revolver. It 
has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by 
this Court. 
7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that his mere 
presence at the place of occurrence along with other co-accused was 
not sufficient to infer common intention. The fact that they may have 
come together to the place of occurrence was also not sufficient. There 
is no positive evidence that they all left together after the assault in the 
same car. No overt act had been attributed to him and neither was he 
possessed of any weapon. The High Court has held that he was not 
aware of the fact that the co-accused was carrying a revolver. There 
was inadequate evidence that he had moved forward with co-accused 
towards the deceased after which the assault took place. 
8. We have considered, the respective submissions, and the 
materials on record. The order of acquittal, in the facts and circumstances 
505 
A 
B 
c 
D 
of
the case, is unsustainable, and deserves to be set aside for reasons 
E 
discussed hereinafter. 
9. Respond~nt no.2 was the nephew of accused no.3. The 
meeting had been called to protest for removal of accused no.3 from the 
post of Mayor on allegations of corruption, with the slogan "Lokman 
Hatao Congress Bachaao". The deceased was the President of the 
Congress Sewa Dal. Apparently the accused were peeved with the 
summoning of the meeting. The evidence of PWs I, 4, 5, 13 and 23 are 
consistent that the four accused came together and alighted from a white 
Ambassador Car. Accused no.3 identified the deceased. Respondent 
no.2, along with accused nos.2 and 4 moved forward towards the 
deceased. Accused no.4 and respondent no.2 then exhorted to kill the 
deceased, at which stage accused no.2 pulled out a revolver and fired at 
F 
G 
the deceased. In the melee that followed the shooting, the accused 
persons fled together in the car. The appellant, PW- I was the own 
brother of the deceased and PW-5, the brother-in-law. There is no 
reason why they should be lying and falsely naming another as the 
H
506 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
assailants, shielding the real accused, especially when they were eye 
witnesses to the occurrence. Respondent no.2 has not urged false 
implication, and on the contrary took the defence of alibi, which has 
been disbelieved by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The 
taking of a false plea is an additional aggravating factor against the 
accused. 
10. Common intention is a state of mind. It is not possible to 
read a person's mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of common 
intention. The existence or non-existence of a common intention amongst 
the accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and 
behavior in the facts and circumstances of each case. Events prior to 
the occurrence as also after, and during the occurrence, are all relevant 
to deduce ifthere existed any common intention. There can be no straight 
jacket formula. The absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or 
possession of weapon cannot be singularly determinative of absence of 
common intention. 
11. Though judicial precedents with regard to common intention 
stand well entrenched, it will be sufficient to refer State of Rajastha11 
vs. Shobha Ram, (2013) 14 SCC 732, observing as follows :-
"l 0. Insofar as common intention is concerned, it is a state of 
mind of an accused which can be inferred objectively from his 
conduct displayed in the course of commission of crime and also 
from prior and
subsequent attendant circumstances. As observed 
in Hari Ram v. State of U.P.§. (SCC p. 622, para 21 ), the existence 
of direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, 
therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the 
circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and 
the proved circumstances. Therefore, in order to bring home the 
charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by 
evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or 
meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence 
before a person can be vicariously convicted for the act of the 
other." 
12. Motive for the assault existed because the accused were 
aggrieved by the meeting summoned. The assault was planned in a 
gathering, where escape would have been easy, in the chaos that would
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.] 
follow the assault. The accused persons came together in a car to 
facilitate a quick get-away. Exhortation was made by respondent no.2, 
when the accused were at very close quarters to the deceased. The 
firing was done from a distance of about 6 inches. The respondent no.2 
and accused no.4 provided cover at this time. There is nothing in the 
conduct ofrespondent no.2 to draw any inference that he was taken by 
surprise, when the co-accused opened fire. Rather than provide help to 
the deceased and his relatives, respondent no.2 immediately escaped 
from the place of occurrence in the chaos that followed, indicative of his 
awareness of the common intention. The sequence of events, and the 
manner in which the occurrence took place, manifests a pre-concerted 
plan and a prior meeting of minds. It was not the case of respondent 
no.2 that he was taken by surprise and was unaware that the co-accused 
was carrying a revolver or that they had no intention to kill the deceased. 
If common intention by meeting of minds is established in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, there need not be an overt act or.possession 
of weapon required, to establish common intention. 
13. In Ramaswami Ayyangar vs. State of Tamil Nad11, {1976) 
3 SCC 779, explaining the essence and purport of common intention, it 
was observed as follows :-
"12 ..... The acts committed by different confederates in the 
criminal
action may be different but all must in one way or the 
other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise, for instance, 
one may only stand guard to prevent any person coming to the 
relief of the victim, or may otherwise facilitate the [commission 
of crime]. Such a person also commits an 'act' as much as his co-
participants actually committing the planned crime." 
14. Though this Court, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction 
under Article 136 of the Constitution, may not interfere with an order of 
acquittal, reversing a conviction, yet if it finds that the High Court has 
completely erred in appreciation of evidence, has applied the wrong 
principles to negate common intention, and has based its conclusions on 
speculative reasoning, beyond the defence of the accused himself, justice 
will demand that the acquittal is reversed. We, therefore, set aside the 
order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore the order of 
conviction of respondent no.2 under Section 302/34 IPC passed by the 
Sessions Judge. Respondent no.2 has remained in custody only for 3 
507 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H

508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
years, 10 months and 7 days. He is directed to surrender forthwith for 
serving out the remaining period of his sentence. 
15. The appeal is allowed. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed.