The Supreme Court on March 11, 2026 upheld the life imprisonment of four men convicted for the murder of Balkishan in Madhya Pradesh, ruling that their presence as part of an unlawful assembly with firearms made them legally responsible for the killing.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts and confirmed the findings of the trial court and the High Court.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Judges, Says Allegations Based
Background of the Case
The case dates back to June 3, 2000. Balkishan, who served as the Chairman of the Watershed Committee, was waiting at the Tihuli bus stand around 8:15 AM to attend a meeting.
According to the prosecution, six accused persons arrived at the bus stand on the same bus, carrying firearms. The main accused, Vikram, allegedly fired the first shot from behind a tractor-trolley, injuring Balkishan’s arm.
As Balkishan attempted to escape towards the village, the accused chased him while continuing to fire. He entered the house of a local resident, Rattan Lal, hoping to find safety.
However, the attackers followed him inside, dragged him into the courtyard, and shot him at close range near the temple area of the head. Balkishan died on the spot.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged the same morning by Budha Ram, the deceased’s brother, at Uteela police station.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore In FIR Over Posts On PM
Trial and Conviction
After investigation, the police filed charge sheets against five accused persons. One accused, Govind Singh, died during the proceedings, while the main accused Vikram remained absconding.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine.
Their conviction was later affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in November 2010. The accused then approached the Supreme Court challenging the verdict.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution story was unreliable. They contended that there was no credible eyewitness to the second part of the incident, where Balkishan was allegedly shot inside Rattan Lal’s house.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Ombudsman Proceedings Against Village Officer, Says He Is Not
It was also submitted that several witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and therefore interested witnesses. The defence further claimed that there were contradictions in the testimony and no recovery of weapons from the accused.
The appellants also raised concerns about alleged procedural lapses in the investigation, including possible irregularities in the FIR and non-compliance with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The State, however, argued that the accused had arrived together at the bus stand carrying firearms, clearly indicating a shared plan. According to the prosecution, their conduct showed a common object to attack the victim.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had successfully established the presence of the accused as part of an unlawful assembly.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Termination of Power Board Worker Over Matric Certificate from
“The very fact that all of them came together armed with firearms clearly proves that they were part of the unlawful assembly and had a common motive,” the bench observed.
The Court explained that under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, every member of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for the acts committed in pursuit of the common objective.
The judges also noted that several witnesses consistently testified that the accused arrived together, fired at the victim, and chased him to the house where he was ultimately killed.
Although some witnesses did not intervene to save the victim, the Court held that such behaviour, though unusual, did not undermine the reliability of their testimony.
Medical evidence further supported the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem report confirmed that Balkishan had sustained multiple gunshot injuries, including wounds near the eye, chest and lower back, which were sufficient to cause death.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Salary of PSU Employees Cannot Decide OBC Creamy Layer Status; 2004 Clarificatio
Decision of the Court
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the findings of the trial court and the High Court were legally sound.
The bench held that there was no illegality in the conviction of the accused and no reason to interfere with the judgments passed by the lower courts.
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the life sentence imposed on the appellants was confirmed.
Since the appellants were on bail during the appeal, the Court directed them to surrender immediately to serve the remaining portion of their sentence.
Case Title: Dablu & Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh; Vinod @ Ajay vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1819–1821 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012
Decision Date: March 11, 2026
