Holding

The appellants are guilty of murder and attempt to murder; the claim of a free fight and absence of common intention are rejected, and the convictions under the IPC are upheld.

Summary

The case involved a violent dispute between neighbouring families that escalated into a gruesome attack where the appellants, Motilal and Santosh Kumar, assaulted and killed three persons, dragged a fourth, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, and also assaulted others who tried to intervene. The trial court sentenced the appellants to death for murder, which the High Court reduced to life imprisonment and upheld the convictions for attempt to murder. The appellants argued that the incident was a "free fight" and that there was no common intention to kill, contending that the prosecution had not explained injuries to the accused. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that the evidence showed intentional, pre‑meditated acts of murder and that the claim of self‑defence or a free fight was untenable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the convictions and the life sentence, while noting that the State had not appealed the acquittals of other accused.

Issues considered

The applicability of the "free fight" doctrine to negate intent to kill
Whether a common intention under Section 149 IPC can be established against the appellants
Whether the lack of explanation for injuries to the accused warrants acquittal
The validity of the convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 324 IPC
The propriety of the High Court's reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324

Subjects

murderattempt to murdercommon intentionself-defencefree fightgruesome murderlife imprisonmentdeath penaltyIPCkerosenearson

Judgment

~ MOTi LAL AND ANR. A
---\ V.

STATEOFM.P.

OCTOBER 3, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
-1

Penal Code, 1860-ss 302, 3021149 and 307-Deceasedpersons
and accused, neighbours bearing animosity with each other-Over
quarrel between their children, accused assaulting deceased with axe c
blows and also those who tried to save, resulting in death of three-
High Court upholding conviction for murder-Justification of-Held:
Justified-Offence committed in gruesome manner-Accused not only
killed two persons but also poured kerosene on one and set her onfire~
They also assaulted those who came to save-Also it cannot be said D
that the irljuries iriflicted by the accused in self-defence.
·- According to the prosecution case, parties were neighbours and
had animosity with each other. Over a quarrel between their children,
appellant-ML and S, inflicted axe blows and killed Band M. NB-wife E
ofB'and AL-husband of MB, who intervened to save Mand MB were
assaulted by iron pipes and axe blows. ST-daughter ofAL, DV and other
children were also assaulted. Appellants had dragged MB, poured
kerosene and set her on fire and later she succumbed to her injuries.
Accused L, HR, KB, GB and HR also participated in the commission F
of offence. FIR was lodged. Appellants and the other accused were
..,,.1 charged under section 302/149, 307 and 148. Trial Court imposed death
sentence upon appellants for murder of M, B and MB; and also
sentenced them under section 307 IPC for attempt to murder NB and
AL. It convicted other accused under section 324 IPC for causing hurt G
to the children. High Court held that a free fight had taken place
between the parties and on the basis of the actual role played by each
j
of the accused and that injuries on the persons of the accused had not
been explained, it upheld the conviction of the appellants under section
293 H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 302 and section 302/149 for murder of M, B and MB but reduced their
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. It convicted appellant under
section 307 IPC for attempt to commit murder of AL and imposed
rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It also convicted accused JB
for attemptto murder NB and accused HR for causing hurt to DV under
8 section 324 IPC. It however, acquitted the other accused. Hence the
present appeal.
Appellants-accused contended that keeping in view the fact that
there had been a free fight, the appellants could not be said to have any
intention to kill M, Band MB; and that the prosecution did not explain.
C the injuries on the part of the accused persons.
Respondent-State contended that the sequence of events clearly
establish the cruel manner in which an attempt had been made not only
to kill three persons but to attempt to murder two others and cause
D injuries to the children; that the High Court erred in acquitting the other
accused persons of the serious charges made against them; and that,
had the police not inten'ened, the number of deceased might have
increased.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that the appellants are not guilty of
commission of the said offence. In this case existence of aiiy common
intention has been ruled out. The High Court proceeded to record its
reasons only on the basis of individual acts of the appellants. No case
has been made out that the injuries were inflicted by the appellants in
F their self-defence. In absence of any such case having been made out,
injuries suffered by ~ome of them pale8 into significance. Three persons
lost their lives. The manner in which the offences have been committed
was gruesome. They not only killed B and M but also dragged MB,
poured kerosene and set her on fire. Whosoever had come to save w~s
G not spared. NB and AL had also been assaulted. Even the children were
not spared. Thus, it is not a case where the appellants could be absolved
of the charges of murder ofM, Band MB.
[Paras 20 and 21] (299-A-D)
1.2. However, having regard to the fact that the State did not prefer
H
'
)_
MOTI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. [SINHA, J.] 295

- {,
any appeal against the judgment ofacquittal passed by the High Court A
'1 against the said accused persons, it is not possible to hold that it was
not a case of free fight or the other accused also had any hand therein.
J
[Para22] [299-EJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1268 of 2006. B

-.j From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2004 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Reference No. 2 of2003. Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1293 & 1294 of 2003.
Sibo Sankar Mishra for the Appellants.
c
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B.SINHA. J. (1) Appellants- Motilal and Santosh Kumar are D
before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court dated 13.5.2004.
(2) The parties were neighbours. Their houses were divided only E
by a wall. They bore animosity ·with each other. The sequence of events
started with defaecation by a child- Nitin in the house of Motilal.
(3) On 4.7.1999 at about 9.30 a.m. when Nitin son of deceased
Munnilal was playing near a tap situated close to his house, Pushpendra
son of Motilal put some mud on his clothes. Nitin went to his house and F
.) informed his father Munnilal. Munnilal came to the house ofMotilal and
·complained in regard to the conduct of Pushpendra. Motilal, Santosh and
Hariram allegedly told him that their children would act in that fashion only.
Narbadiya Bai- P.W.-3 reached the spot and told them that they always
picked up quarrels. Appellants herein allegedly started inflicting axe blows G
on Munnilal-since deceased. Narbadiya Bai tried to save him, but
~ ....... allegedly one Jamuna Bai inflicted a blow on her by means of an iron pipe.
f
Appellants Kalli Bai and Guddi Bai also hurled stick blows on Narbadiya
Bai. Meanwhile Baldev said to have reached at that point of time.
H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Appellants inflicted axe blows on Baldev and Hariram gave a blow of
Baka on Baldev. Appellants Kali and Guddi Bai are said to have given
stick blows on Baldev. Appellant-Lachhu snatched the axe from Santosh
Kumar and dealt a blow on the head of deceased Munnilal.
B (4) Prosecution case further is that the appellants together with
Lachhu, Hariram, Kalli Bai and Guddi caught hold ofMunnibai and
dragged her to the door of their house. Whereas Motilal brought a cane
of kerosene and sprinkled kerosene on Munnibai; Santosh put her on fire.
When Amritlal, husband of Munnibai tried to save her, Santosh dealt an --
C axe blow on him which Arnritlal took on his hand. Amritlal, thereafter,
ran away from the place of incident and informed the police. Munnibai in
the meantime rushed towards a nearby well and jumped there into. Sita-
daughter of Amritlal reached the place of occurrence. She was pushed
into a drain by Santosh. Similar treatments were meted out to Devshree
D and other children.
(5) First information report was lodged at about 11 a.m. on the same
day. All the accused persons were arrested at the spot. In fact, the arrival
of police saved further deterioration of the situation.

E (6) Munnilal arid Baldev died on the spot. Munnibai was rescued
from the well. Her dying declaration was recorded. She succumbed to
her injuries later on.
(7) Charges under Section 302/149 I.P.C., Section 307 and Section
148 were framed against the accused including the appellants herein and
F others being Jamuna Bai, Guddi Bai, Lachhu, Hariram and Kalli Bai.
I ,.-
(8) The learned trial Judge imposed death sentence upon Santosh
and Motilal on the charge of murder ofMunnilal and Baldev as also
Munnibai. They were also sentenced under Section 307 of the I.P.C. for
G attempt to murder Narbadiya Bai and Amritlal. Other accused were also
charged and convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. for causing hurt to the
children.
(9) The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment
opined that a free fight between the parties had taken place. It proceeded
H
I
..)._
MOTI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. (SINHA, J.] 297

.... ~. to examine the case on the basis of the actual role played by each of the A
accused. Upon analysing the evidence, it was opined that only appellants
are guilty of commission of offences mentioned hereinbefore. Apart from
convicting Jamuna Bai for attempt to murder Narbadiya Bai and Hariram
were convicted for causing hurt to Devshree under Section 324 I.P.C ..
Other accused were acquitted. B
(10) As indicated hereinbefore, whereas the judgment of conviction
under Section 302 IPC and Section 302/149 was cofirmed against
Santosh Kumar and Motilal but their sentence was reduced from that of
death to rigorous imprisonment for life. Santosh Kumar was also convicted
for commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for
c
attempt to commit murder of Amritlal and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years.
(11) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would
submit that keeping in view the fact that there had been a free fight, the D
appellants could not be said to have any intention to kill the aforementioned
persons. Learned counsel in this behalf drew our attention to the testimony
of Dr. D.K. Jain-D.W.2 as also Dr. Vijay Parmar- D.W.l, who had
proved the injuries suffered by the accused persons.
E
(12) A feeble attempt was also made by the learned counsel to
contend that as the prosecution have not explained the injuries on the part
of the accused persons, the entire prosecution case must fail.
( 13) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other
hand, submitted that the sequence of events as noticed by the learned F
_,,,.~ Sessions Judge itself as also by the High Court clearly establish the cruel
manner in which an attempt had been made not only to kill three persons
but to attempt to murder two others and cause injuries to the chil~ren.
(14) Learned counsel would submit that the High Court had G
committed a serious enor in acquitting the other accused persons of the
serious charges made against them. It was submitted that had the police
·~ /'\ not intervened, the number of deceased might have increased. It was
pointed out that Munnibai was not only dragged by the accused to their
own house, a cane of kerosene was brought from inside the house and B
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A sprinkled on her body and frre was lit. She only out of desperation jumped
into the well and could be rescued only after the police arrived.
( 15) Pr-0secution in support of its case, examined a large number of
witnesses. Amongst them, Narbadiya Bai(P.W.-3) was widow of deceased
B Baldev, mother of deceased Munnilal and mother-in-law of deceased
Munnibai, gave her version in regard to the incident in question. She fully
supported the prosecution case.She gave details as to how Baldev and
Munnilal were done to death and Munnibai was set on fire. She also
established that when Amritlal tried to save Munnibai, was hit by an axe
C blow by Santosh. When Sita and Devshree reached there, Santosh
pushed Sita into a drain. Defshree also received the same treatment from
him. According to her, Hari Ram also dealt a blow of Baka on the thigh
of Devshree.
(16) Amritlal is another prosecution witness. He was offering his
D prayers in his house at about 10.30 a.m. on the relevant day. When he
heard some cries, he came out and saw the occurrence. Sarita (P. W.-8)
was also an eye witness.
(17) The High Court, however, despite such evidences, proceeded
E on the basis that injuries on the persons of th~ accused had not been
explained. As Narmadiya Bai did not name Jamuna Bai,Guddi Bai and
Hari Ram as assaulting anybody, they were given the benefit of doubt.
(18) On such finding, the High Court opined that only Moti Lal and
Santosh were responsible for the death ofMunni Lal. Similarly, as regards
F the death ofBaldev, Santosh and Moti Lal were found to be guilty.
(19) In regard to setting Munniabi on fire, again the High Court ,. 'IY
proceeded on the basis that Santosh had dragged Munnibai and Moti Lal
poured kerosene on her. Participation of other accused in his said act was
G not accepted. The High Court was of the opinion that the prosecution
could not establish individual act of any other appellant, so far as the
attempt to commit murder ofNarbadiya is concerned. However, in regard
to Amritlal, Santosh was found responsible for attempt to commit his ,,-\ -r-
murder.
H
MOTi LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. [SINHA, J.] 299

~
''"°(
(20) It is therefore, difficult to accept the contention of learned A
counsel for the appellant that they are not guilty of commission of the said
offence. The question as to whether they had any intention to kill or not
must not engage our serious attention as in this case existence of any
common intention has been ruled out. The High Court proceeded to

- record its reasons only on the basis of individual acts of the appellants. B
No case has been made out that the injuries were inflicted by the appellants
in their self-defence. In absence of any such case having been made oµt,
1

~
injuries suffered by some of them pales into its sigriificance. Three persc)ns
lost their lives. The manner in which the offences have been commitfud
was gruesome. They not only killed Baldev and Munnilal but also dragged c
Munnibai to her house, poured kerosene and set her on fire. Whosoever
had come to save was was not spared. Narbadiya Bai and Amritlal had
also been assaulted.Even the children were not spared.
(21) In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a
D
case where the appellants can be absolved of the charges of murder of
Munnilal, Baldev and Munnibai.
...:.

(22) The appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact
that the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal
passed by the High Court against the said accused persons, it is not E
possible for us to hold that it was not a case of free fight or the other
accused also had any hand therein.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.

-..I