Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800
1 CRA-395-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 395 of 2009
RAJU KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Pandey - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Atma Ram Bain - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna, District Panna (M.P.), whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and simple imprisonment for one month respectively along with fine, with default stipulations.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the incident in question occurred in the year 2008 at village Magraila Khurd. The prosecution case reveals that the dispute between the parties arose out of a petty and trivial issue relating to taking of vegetables, which suddenly escalated into a quarrel. The complainant Laxmibai, wife of Bholi Kachhi, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 2 CRA-395-2009 was present at her house at about 03:00 PM along with her husband and daughter Vandana. At that time, Kallu Bai came near the door of the complainant and started abusing her, alleging that vegetables were taken by the complainant. Due to this, a sudden altercation took place between them. It is alleged that during the course of the quarrel, accused Raju Kachhi was came and by an axe caused injury to husband of Bholi Kachhi by the blunt side of the axe. Other accused persons also intervened and caused injuries to Vandna. An FIR was lodged and the injured persons were medically examined. One fracture injury on the clavicle bone of Laxmibai was found. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
3. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication, contending that the complainant party was the aggressor and injuries were also caused to the accused persons during the same occurrence.
4. After appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1, against whom the main allegation of causing injury by axe was attributed, expired on 13.10.2019 due to sudden cardio-respiratory arrest. Accordingly, the appeal stands abated against appellant No.1.
6. It is further noteworthy that appellant Nos.2 and 3 are women, and they have remained on bail throughout the trial and appeal proceedings and have not undergone any actual jail sentence.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 3 CRA-395-2009
7. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel on a trivial issue without any pre-meditation of mind. Learned trial tourt committed error to apply the principle of section 34 of the IPC. The appellants have been facing the ordeal of criminal proceedings since the year 2008, i.e., for more than sixteen years. The main accused has already expired. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are women, first-time offenders and deserve leniency. Hence, prayer is made to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining or enhancing the fine amount.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the incident occurred without premeditation in the minds of the accused, therefore, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential requirements of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons are liable to be punished for their individual acts only, hence, the present accused cannot be punished for the acts of the other co-accused. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in punishing the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. Learned Government Advocate opposed the argument of the appellants by submitting that the evidence of the eye-witness proved the premeditation of mind of the accused; hence, the Trial Court rightly applied the principle of vicarious liability of the co-accused, and prayed to reject the appeal.
12 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) establishes the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 4 CRA-395-2009 principle of joint liability, stating that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable as if they committed the act alone. It requires a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds (common intention) and active participation, though not necessarily physical, by all accused. There must be a criminal act, the involvement of two or more persons, and a "common intention" (shared mental state). This signifies a pre-arranged plan or a prior meeting of minds to commit a specific offense. It can develop just before the crime on the spot. Active participation in the commission of the crime is necessary, but it does not mean everyone must commit the same act. One person might stand guard while others execute the crime.
13 Common intention requires a pre-arranged, shared plan (meeting of minds) among participants, triggering joint liability under Section 34 of the IPC. Conversely, same or similar intention involves individuals acting independently with identical motives but without coordination, holding them liable only for their own actions.
14 In the matter of Ram Naresh v. State of UP, 2024 (1) SCC 443 the Apex Court has clarified that to attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"), there must be a common intention amongst all the co-accused persons, indicating that they have a shared purpose. The Court further clarified that there is no mandate of an explicit discussions or agreements amongst the co-accused. Common intention amongst the accused persons may arise just prior to commission of the offence. The Division Bench stressed that "For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 5 CRA-395-2009 intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design." It further highlighted that "Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence." The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court that upheld the decision of the Trial Court wherein it convicted all the accused persons under Section 302 read with (r.w.) Section 34 IPC for committing murder.
15 The complainant, Laxmi Bai, wife of Bholi Kachhi, along with her husband, was in her house at village Magraila Khurd at about 3:00 P.M. At that time, their daughter Vandana came into the house. Meanwhile, Kallu Bai came in front of the door of her house and a dispute arose regarding the plucking of a pumpkin. Kallu Bai caught her during this dispute. On seeing this, her husband came out of the house. At the same time, the accused Raju also arrived there with an axe. While talking to her husband, a quarrel took place, during which Raju struck her husband on the forehead with the blunt side of the axe. At that moment, Bhuri Bai also came there and intervened in the quarrel. At the same time, Pushpa, wife of Ganga Kachi and mother of Raju, also came and beat Laxmi Bai and her daughter Vandana. An FIR has been registered on the report of Laxmi Bai. In her statement, Laxmi Bai corroborated the incident.
16 It is clear that the incident began with a conversation between Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 6 CRA-395-2009 Laxmi Bai and Kallu Bai, during which the accused was not present. When the husband of Laxmi Bai came out of the house and started talking with Raju, Raju struck Laxmi Bai's husband on the head with an axe. According to the report, Kallu Bai and Pushpa arrived after the injury to Laxmi Bai's husband, and while intervening in the incident, they beat Vandana.
17. Laxmibai (PW-1) stated in his statement that meanwhile, Vandana came there Vandana was also beaten up by Kallu Bai and Pushpa. Pushpa hit Vandana with a stick and Kallu Bai hit her with the blunt side of a spade. Raju hit him with the blunt side of an axe, which injury caused near her right collarbone. Vandana suffered injuries on her leg and head. After beating him, accused ran away. An X-ray examination was also done. In medical examination a fracture has been found at caller bone of Laxmi bai. Frome the above statement it is very well clear that the fracture caused by accused Raju. And Kallu Bai and Pushpa hit Vandana with a stick and Kallu Bai hit her with the blunt side of a spade. No evidence to apply the principle of common intention therefore accused are liable to his own act.
18 The above facts clearly show that there was no premeditation of mind on the part of the accused. If the husband of Laxmi Bai had not come out of the house and had not started a dispute with the son of Kallu Bai, then no incident would have taken place. These facts indicate that the accused Raju committed the offence by his own will and not as part of a common intention.
19 In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rohan Singh, 1996 Cr LJ 2884 (SC) the Supreme Court relied on the view of this court in Pandurang v.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 7 CRA-395-2009 State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 and observed that: "Common intention necessarily implies a pre-arranged plan or prior concert or prior meetings of minds. Thus there is a sharing of the purpose, which is lacking in a case where several persons have the 'same or similar intention'. Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention, namely, the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre- arranged plan. In AIR 1945 PC 118 Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, Privy Council has opined there was no evidence of common intention to the evidence that the appellant "just have been acting in concert with Wali Shah Pursuance of a concerted plan when he along with him rushed to the help of Ghulam Qasim". In their view the common intention of both was to rescue Ghulam Qasim and both of them picked up different individuals to deal with. Evidence is lacking to show that there was any pre-mediation to bring about the murder of Allah Dad. At the most, they can be stated to have "similar intention but similar intention is different from 'common intention' and one should not be confused with the other. In present case when the accused Raju came and below axe on the head of Laxmibai husband then accused Kallubai and Pushpa came to intervening the incident. There is no evidence the act of the accused Raju was in the furtherance of common intention to all accused. Hence the intention of Raju may be similar but not in the furtherance of common intention. Hence I hold the application of 34 IPC is no applicable to the case.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 8 CRA-395-2009
20. It is also well settled that premeditation of mind at the time of the incident does not necessarily mean that all the accused must have met prior to the commission of the offence for that purpose. However, in the present case, there is no evidence that the accused Raju committed any act in furtherance of a common intention. Common intention and the same intention are not equal to each other. It is possible that the accused may have had a similar intention to commit the offence due to the dispute that arose at that time. However, in that situation, each accused would be liable for their own act and not vicariously liable for the acts of another accused.
21. So far as the finding of conviction is concerned, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has committed error to appreciate the evidence available on record to apply the principle of section 34 of the Indian penal code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325/34 is liable to set aside. Hence the conviction under 325/ 34 hereby set aside and accused 2 and 3 is acquitted from the charges of 325/34 of the I.P.C.
22. However so for as the concerned the conviction under 323, while considering the question of sentence under 323 I.P.C , the fact that the incident is of the year 2008, and the dispute arose out of a petty issue relating to vegetables. The quarrel was sudden, and act of the appellant no 2 and 3 only for getting injury to the Vandana and Laxmibai, that fact cannot be disputed by the appellants, Consequently conviction under section 323/34 is modified to Sections 323 of the IPC and sentence of one month imprisonment to imposed appellant Nos.2 and 3 are set aside and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11800 9 CRA-395-2009 of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
23. The appellants are on bail. Upon deposit of the enhanced fine amount, they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Criminal Appeal in respect of appellant No.1 is hereby abated due to his death. Appellant shall deposit enhance fine amount within a one month before the trial court. Fine amount 700-700 (Rupees Seven hundred) which is already been deposited shall be adjusted.
24. The order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of seized property, if any, stands confirmed.
25. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
26. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
27. Criminal Appeal is disposed of with the above observation.
(PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE Praveen Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:02:54 PM