Accused Who Entered Home Armed with Axe and Cutting Weapon Are Guilty of Murder, Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentences

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the appeal by three accused challenging their convictions and life sentences for the death of an elderly man and injuries to his grandchildren, arising from an altercation over worship at a disputed piece of land. The appeal proceeded from convictions recorded by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and concurrent confirmation by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the prosecution had proved that the accused came to the deceased’s house “with deadly weapons” and that their overt acts during the scuffle were sufficient to sustain a finding of murder. The Court noted that the ocular witnesses were injured in the incident and their evidence was corroborated by medical testimony. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “That, the accused came to the house of the deceased with the intention of questioning them regarding the visit made to the deity installed in the disputed property, has been unequivocally proved by the oral testimony of witnesses. That, the accused came to the house armed with deadly weapons also stands established which clearly points to the premeditation and the intention to cause injuries which were likely to cause death. The facts regarding the fight and the overt acts, as disclosed from the evidence does not commend us to find an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor falls under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The medical evidence, that the injury could be caused either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an accidental fall, does not detract from the finding under Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony; (i) of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the house of the victims, (ii) the altercation and fight that ensued and (iii) the overt acts of the accused, inflicting injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased and victims, (iv) totally corroborated by the medical evidence regarding injuries on the deceased and each of the injured witnesses; PWs 1 to 3. The fatal injury caused on the deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus is clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims; one of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after a few days, as deposed by the Doctor.”

Background: The dispute arose when one of the injured grandchildren visited a deity installed on a contested plot; members of the accused party, allegedly prompted by the person in possession of the land, reached the deceased’s home carrying an axe (farsa) and a cutting weapon (luhangi) and questioned the family. A scuffle ensued that resulted in multiple injuries to the grandchildren and, eventually, the death of their grandfather after 25 days in hospital. Nine persons featured in the FIR; six were charged at trial, one of whom died during proceedings. The three appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines; two other accused who faced lesser charges were acquitted by the Trial Court. The High Court affirmed the convictions and sentences.

On appeal, counsels for the appellants contended that there was no premeditation or intention to cause death and that medical evidence permitted the possibility that the fatal head injury arose from an accidental fall, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II at most. The State relied on the consistent ocular testimony of the injured grandchildren and a neighbour who witnessed the scuffle and accompanied the victims to hospital. The Supreme Court examined witness credibility, noting that related witnesses who were injured in the same transaction could not be discarded simply for kinship, and observed that corroboration by medical evidence supported the ocular accounts. The Court held that the evidence did not attract exceptions to murder or justify reduction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appeal was dismissed; the appellants were directed to surrender within two weeks if on bail, and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 435 Case Title: Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais (counsel for appellants) For the Respondent(s): Sh. Yashraj Singh Bundela (counsel for State)