LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Babu (PW.1); Sobhanan (PW.2); and Parvathy (PW.4) all relatives were having inimical terms with the appellants. Several criminal cases were pending between them. In order to take revenge, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly for the purpose of committing murder of Sobhanan (PW.2). They waited in the house of Sudhakaran (A.1) on 12.4.2000, which was the last day of Mahotsavam conducted in the Shanmughaviiasam temple at Kulasekharamangalam, at about 10.00 p.m. B. Sobhanan (PW.2) came alongwith his 8 years old son along the pathway on the eastern side of the house of Sudhakaran (A.1) from the temple. Sudhakaran (A.1) repeatedly shouted "catch him". The accused chased him and on seeing this, Sobhanan (PW.2) ran from the place leaving his son there towards the house of Sobhana (PW.3) i.e. "Sophia Bhawan". However, before Sobhanan (PW.2) could enter "Sophia Bhawan", Sudhakaran (A.1) inflicted cut injury on his hand. Sobhanan (PW.2) entered the said house and succeeded in closing the door from inside. All the accused except Shaji (A.18) broke open the door and inflicted injuries on Sobhanan (PW.2) with their respective weapons and he was dragged to the western courtyard and again beaten. In this process, a large number of articles of the use of "Sophia Bhawan" got destroyed.


                                                                         REPORTABLE




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 162 of 2006




         Ramachandran & Ors. Etc.                                             ...Appellants




                                               Versus




         State of Kerala                                                          ...Respondent








                                       J U D G M E N T








         Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.








       1.      This   appeal   has   been   preferred   against   the  judgment  and  order 




       dated   7.4.2005   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   at   Ernakulam   in 




       Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   1675   and   1955   of   2003   by   which   the   High 




       Court, while affirming the findings of fact, modified the judgment and 




       order of the trial court dated 29.8.2003 in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2001 




       i.e.     Criminal   Appeal   No.   1675   of   2003   stood   dismissed,   while 




       Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2003 was partly allowed. 








         2.     Facts and circumstance giving rise to this appeal are that:




       A.      Babu   (PW.1);   Sobhanan   (PW.2);   and   Parvathy   (PW.4)   all 




       relatives   were   having   inimical   terms   with   the   appellants.   Several 



criminal cases were pending between them.   In order to take revenge, 




the   appellants   formed   an   unlawful   assembly   for   the   purpose   of 




committing murder of Sobhanan (PW.2).  They waited in the house of 




Sudhakaran (A.1) on 12.4.2000, which was the last day of Mahotsavam 




conducted in the Shanmughaviiasam temple at Kulasekharamangalam, 




at about 10.00 p.m. 




B.     Sobhanan (PW.2) came alongwith his 8 years old son along the 




pathway on the eastern side of the house of Sudhakaran (A.1) from the 




temple.     Sudhakaran   (A.1)   repeatedly   shouted   "catch   him".   The 




accused chased him and on seeing this, Sobhanan (PW.2) ran from the 




place leaving his son there towards the house of Sobhana (PW.3) i.e. 




"Sophia   Bhawan".     However,   before   Sobhanan   (PW.2)     could   enter 




"Sophia Bhawan",  Sudhakaran (A.1) inflicted cut injury on his hand. 




Sobhanan (PW.2) entered the said house and succeeded in closing the 




door from inside.   All the accused except Shaji (A.18) broke open the 




door   and   inflicted   injuries   on   Sobhanan   (PW.2)   with   their   respective 




weapons   and   he   was   dragged   to   the   western   courtyard   and   again 




beaten.  In this process, a large number of articles of the use of "Sophia 




Bhawan" got destroyed.










                                                                                  2



C.     While  hearing   the  hue  and  cry,   Kuttappan  (deceased)   father  of 




Sobhanan   (PW.2)   and   Babu   (PW.1)   reached   there.     The   appellants 




rushed   towards   Kuttappan   (deceased)   shouting   "Kill   them"   and 




thereafter,  Sudhakaran   (A.1)  inflicted   a  cut  injury  on  the   head  of the 




deceased   with   a   sword   stick   in   his   hand   and   other   accused   inflicted 




injuries   on   him   with   their   respective   weapons,   namely,   choppers, 




knives and iron rods.   When Babu (PW.1) and Parvathy (PW.4) made 




an attempt to intervene, they were also attacked by the appellants and 




injured.       Kuttappan succumbed to the injuries caused by the accused 




at the spot and the accused persons ran away from the spot.




D.     An   FIR   in   respect   of   the   incident   was   lodged   and   thus, 




investigation   commenced.   The  recovery  of the  weapons was made  at 




the   instance   of   the   accused   and   after   completing   the   formalities,   18 




accused were put on trial.  The prosecution to prove its case examined 




a large number of witnesses including five eye-witnesses. Out of them, 




four had been injured witnesses.  




E.           On conclusion  of the trial,  the court acquitted  Shaji  (A.18) and 




convicted A1 to A11, 14 and 15 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 




324, 449, 427 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called 




`the   IPC')   read   with   Section   149   IPC   and   sentenced   to   undergo 










                                                                                     3



imprisonment for life and also for payment of fine of Rs.25,000/- each, 




in default to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 




302   IPC   and   they   are   further   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous 




imprisonment   for   ten   years   each   and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.10,000/- 




each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each 




under   Section   307   IPC   and   further   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous 




imprisonment for one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, 




in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each under 




Section   324   IPC   and   they   are   also   liable   to   be   sentenced   to   undergo 




rigorous   imprisonment   for   six   months   each   and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of 




Rs.1000/-   each.     In   default   to   undergo   rigorous   Imprisonment   for   two 




months  each under Section  323 IPC and   further sentenced  to undergo 




rigorous   imprisonment   for   six   months   each   and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of 




Rs.1000/-   each,   in   default   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   two 




months   each   under   Section   427   IPC   and   they   are   further   sentenced   to 




undergo rigorous imprisonment  for seven years each and also to pay a 




fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 




two   years   each   under   Section   449   IPC   and   they   are   also   sentenced   to 




undergo rigorous imprisonment  for six months each under Section 143 




IPC   and     further   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   one 










                                                                                       4



year each under Section 148 IPC and the sentences are directed to run 




concurrently. 




             Other accused, namely, A12, A13, A16 and A17 were convicted 




under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 449, 427 read with Section 149 




IPC.   They   were   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   10 




years   each   and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.,10,000/-   each,   in   default   to 




undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Section 307 IPC 




and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months 




each   and   also   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.1000/-   each,   in   default   to   undergo 




rigorous imprisonment for two months each under Section 323 IPC and 




further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each 




and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous 




imprisonment   for  two  months  each   under  Section  427  IPC  and  further 




sentenced  to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for seven  years each,  and 




also   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.5000/-   each,   in   default   to   undergo   rigorous 




imprisonment   for   two   years   each   under   Section   449   IPC   and   further 




sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   one   year   each   under 




Section   148   IPC   and   also   further   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous 




imprisonment or six months each under Section 143 IPC. 




         










                                                                                         5



F.      Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the appeals which have 




been   disposed   of   by   common   judgment   and   order   dated   7.4.2005   by 




which the High Court modified the order of the trial court to the  extent 




that   conviction   of   A7,   A10   and   A11   under   Section   302   IPC   was   set 




aside.  However, their conviction and sentence for other offences have 




been confirmed. 




                Hence, this appeal. 








3.      Shri   C.N.   Sree   Kumar,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the 




appellants, has submitted that courts below erred in making the case of 




some   of   the   appellants   distinguishable   from   others   as   one   set   of 




appellants stood convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC etc. and another 




set of appellants has been convicted under Sections 307/149 IPC etc., 




though, under the facts and circumstances of the case, no distinction is 




permissible.   Even,   if   the   case   of   some   of   the   appellants   has   to   be 




separated from others, the set of appellants who have been convicted 




under Section 302/149 IPC would have been convicted under Section 




304 - Part I IPC.   This was necessary in view of the evidence of the 




doctors,   who   conducted   the   postmortem   examination   of   Kuttappan 




(deceased)   and   examined   other   persons.   The   appellants   had   not 




proceeded with common object to kill any person in as much as to kill 








                                                                                      6



Kuttappan, thus, provisions of Section 149 IPC are not attracted.  From 




the facts available on record, inference can be drawn that some of the 




appellants had an object to catch hold of Sobhanan (PW.2), however, 




there was no intention to kill him.   No independent witness has been 




examined   and   all   the   injured   witnesses   had   been   very   close   to   the 




deceased. In a case, where a very large number of assailants are there 




and the incident is over in a short span of time, it is not possible for the 




eye-witnesses to identify all the accused and give detailed description 




of participation of each of them.   Thus, evidence of the eye-witnesses 




cannot be relied upon. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 








4.     Per contra, Shri M.T. George, learned counsel appearing for the 




respondent State, has opposed the appeal, contending that in the facts 




and   circumstances   of   the   case,   provisions   of   Section   149   IPC   have 




rightly been applied. The prosecution succeeded in proving its case by 




examining   five   eye-witnesses,   out   of   them   four   had   been   injured 




witnesses. The medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution. 




Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 








5.     We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   made   by   learned 




counsel for the parties and perused the record. 










                                                                                   7



6.     There is enough evidence on record to establish that appellants 




were  present,  armed   with  sword  stick,   choppers,   knife   and  iron  rods. 




Dr.   Girish   (PW.18)   conducted   the   postmortem   on   the   body   of 




Kuttappan   (deceased)   and   prepared   report   (Ex.   P-14).     According   to 




which, the following 34 injuries were found on his person: 




           (1)   Incised   wound   7x1.5   cm.   bone   deep   sagitally 


           placed   on   right   side   of   front   of  head,   3   c.m.  outer   to 


           midline   and   4   c.m.   above   eye   brow.   Frontal   bone 


           underneath   sowed   fissured   fracture   8.5   c.m.   long 


           extending  to  margin  of  coronal   suture.    Subarachnoid 


           bleeding present on both sides of brain.   Gyri of brain 


           flattened and sulci narrowed.


           (2)   Contused  abrasion. 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. on left  side  of 


           face, 3 cm. in front of ear.


           (3)   Contused   abrasion   7.5   x   0.7   c.m.   horizontal,   on 


           right side of front of chest, just ouster to midline and 


           8.5 c.m. below collar bone.


           (4) Multiple small abrasions over an area 3.5 x 1 c.m. 


           on back of right elbow. 


           (5)   Contused   abrasion   6   x   0.5   c.m.   oblique   on   outer 


           aspect  of right forearm 4  c.m. below elbow.


           (6) Lacerated wound 0.7 x 0.5 c.m. on the front of right 


           forearm. 10 c.m. below elbow.


           (7) Contused abrasion 16 x 2 c.m. oblique on back of 


           right forearm 1 c.m. above wrist.


           (8)   Multiple   small   contused   abrasions   over   an   area 


           4x2cm on back of right wrist and hand.


           (9)   Contused   abrasion   3x1   cm   oblique   on   the   outer 


           aspect of right elbow. 


           (10)   Contused   abrasion   7x2em.   Oblique   on   the   outer 


           aspect of right hip. 


           (11)   Multiple contused abrasions over an area 11 x 4 


           cm. On    the outer aspect of    right thigh 7cm. Above 


           knee. 


           (12) Contused abrasion 2x1cm on front of right knee. 








                                                                                          8



(13) Multiple small contused abrasions over an area 10 


x 8 cm. On back of right leg 3cm. Below Knee. 


(14) Contused abrasion 2.5x1 cm. On front of right leg. 


16cm. above ankle. 


(15) Contused abrasion 2x1 cm on front of right ankle. 


(16)   Multiple   small   contused   abrasions   over   an   area 


30x7cm. on front of left leg, just below Knee. 


(17)   Incised   punctured   wound   5x2x9   cm.   oblique   on 


outer aspect of left leg 2 cm. below Knee. Upper back 


end  showed   splitting   of  tissues   and   other   end   sharply 


cut. The wound was directed downwards. 


(18)   Contused   abrasion   5.5x1cm.   oblique   on   outer 


aspect of left Knee. 


(19)   Multiple   small   contused   abrasions   over   an   area 


20x16 cm. on the front of left thigh and Knee. 


(20) Incised punctured wound 3.5 x 1 x 7.5 cm. oblique 


on outer aspect of left hip.   Upper back end was blunt 


and   other   end   sharply   cut.     The   wound   was   directed 


downwards.


(21) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm. on the outer aspect of left hip, 


2 cm. above injury No.20. 


(22) Incised  punctured wound 3.5x1.5 x 1 cm. oblique 


over left buttock. The upper inner end was blunt and 


other end sharp. The wound was directed forwards. 


(23)  Incised wound 1.5 x O.3xO.5 cm. over left 


buttock, 2 cm. below injury No.2. 


(24) Contused abrasion 11x2 cm. oblique on right side 


of back of trunk 10 cm. below tip of shoulder blade. 


(25) Contused abrasion 2.5x1 cm. oblique on right side 


of back of trunk, 2 cm. outer to midline and 5 cm. 


above lilac crest. 


(26) Multiple contused abrasions over an area 24 x 11 


cm. on left side of chest 8 cm. below armpit.  8th and 


9th ribs underneath showed fracture at their outer 


angles. 


(27)  Incised punctured wound 2x0.5 cm. on left side of 


back of trunk. Inner upper blunt end being 4 cm. below 


tip of shoulder blade. 


(28) Contused abrasion 1x0.5 cm. on back of left hand, 


just above root of middle finger. 








                                                                        9



            (29) Incised wound 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm. oblique on back of 


            left wrist. 


            (30)    Incised wound 3x1xO.5 cm. oblique on back of 


            left forearm 15 cm. below elbow. 


            (31)Multiple small abrasions over an area 13x4 cm. on 


                 the front of left forearm just below elbow. 


            (32)Multiple contused abrasions over an area 25x10 


                 cm. on back of left arm, just above elbow. 


            (33)Abrasion 5x3 cm. on top of left shoulder.


            (34)Abrasion 5 x 3 cm. on the tip of penis. 




         In  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Girish   (PW.18),   the  injuries   were  caused 




with the weapons recovered from the appellants and Kuttappan died of 




head injury i.e. injury no. 1. as it was sufficient to cause death.  








7.     Babu (PW.1)  was examined by Dr. C.P. Venugopal (PW.20) and 




following injuries were found on his person:




         (1)        Cut injury 10 c.m. x 3 x 1 c.m. on the left thigh 


         - posterior aspect. 


          (2)      Lacerated injury 6 x 2 x 1.5 c.m. on the back of 


             scalp left side bleeding.








8.      Sobhanan (PW.2) son of the deceased was examined by Dr. P.R. 




Anil Kumar (PW.21) and following injuries were found on his person:




   (1)       A cut injury in the right elbow.




   (2)         Lacerated   wound   frontal   to   occipital   areas   of   the   scalp 


        approximately 20 cm length.


   (3) Cut injury on the right thigh and right leg.




   (4) Lacerated injury in the left ear.










                                                                                  10



  (5) Lacerated injury on the left forearm, right palm and right forearm 


       and right elbow.


  (6) Lacerated injury on the right thigh. 




  (7) Punctured wound in the right thigh and right leg.




  (8) Abrasions left and right shoulder. 




  (9) Swelling left cheek.




  (10)Fracture   mandible   left   side.     Comminuted   fracture   left   lateral 


       malleious. 


  (11)Comminuted fracture fibular neck.




  (12)Fracture lateral condyle left." 








                    According   to  the  opinion  of Dr.  P.R.  Anil  Kumar   (PW.21), 




Sobhanan (PW.2) suffered very serious injuries of grave nature and had 




a very narrow escape from death. 








9.      In this factual scenario, Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar has mainly  argued 




on the application of the provisions of Section 149 IPC, contending that 




all   the   appellant   did   not   have   common   object   to   cause   death   of 




Kuttappan (deceased) and as the seventeen persons had been involved, 




it was not possible for the alleged eye-witnesses to give minute detail 




about   their   respective   overt   act.     More   so,   Sobhanan   (PW.2)   had 




become   unconscious   after   being   beaten   and   regained   conscious   after 




two days, thus, it was not possible for him to see the incident regarding 




the death of his father Kuttuppan.  










                                                                                  11



       The issue raised hereinabove alongwith other issues particularly 




that   all   the   witnesses   were   partisan   and   no   independent   witness   was 




examined; there was no light on the spot, therefore, the witnesses could 




not   see   the   incident   properly,   recovery   effected   was   not   proved 




properly;   identification   of   arms   was   far   from   satisfaction;   there   was 




lack   of   credibility   of   the   version   of   the   prosecution   and   minor 




contradictions in their statements have been properly considered by the 




courts   below   and   those   factual   issues   do   not   require   any   further 




appreciation. 










SECTION 149 IPC:    Scope and Object




10.        Section 149 IPC has essentially two ingredients viz. (i) offence 




committed by any member of an unlawful assembly consisting five or 




more members and (ii) such offence must be committed in prosecution 




of   the   common   object   (under   Section   141   IPC)   of   the   assembly   or 




members   of   that   assembly   knew   to   be   likely   to   be   committed   in 




prosecution of the common object.








11.        For "common object", it is not necessary that there should be a 




prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful 




assembly, the common object may form on spur of the moment; it is 










                                                                                   12



enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. 




In   order   that   the   case   may   fall   under   the   first   part   the   offence 




committed must be connected immediately with the common object of 




the   unlawful   assembly   of   which   the   accused   were   members.   [Vide: 




Bhanwar Singh  & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2008) 16 SCC 657]       








12.      Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the 




common  object of the assembly,  it may yet fall under second part of 




Section   149   IPC   if   it   can   be   held   that   the   offence   was   such   as   the 




members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does 




not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. For 




instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons 




go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to 




say   that   someone   is   likely   to   be   killed   and   all   the   members   of   the 




unlawful   assembly   must   be   aware   of   that   likelihood   and   would   be 




guilty under the second part of Section 149 IPC.








13.        There may be cases which would come within the second part, 




but   not   within   the   first.   The   distinction   between   the   two   parts   of 




Section 149 IPC cannot be ignored or obliterated. [See : Mizaji & Anr. 










                                                                                          13



v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 572; and Gangadhar Behera & Ors. v. 




State of Orissa, AIR 2002 SC 3633]. 








14.       However,   once it is established that the unlawful assembly had 




common   object,   it   is   not   necessary   that   all   persons   forming   the 




unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. 




For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability under the provision, 




the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence 




committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact 




whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually 




committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common 




object. [See   :  Daya  Kishan v.  State   of  Haryana,  (2010) 5  SCC  81; 




Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2010) 7 SCC 477, and  Debashis 




Daw v. State of W.B., (2010) 9 SCC 111]. 








15.      The crucial question for determination in such a case is whether 




the  assembly  consisted  of  five  or  more   persons  and   whether   the   said 




persons  entertained   one  or  more   of   the   common   objects   specified   by 




Section   141.   While   determining   this   question,   it   becomes   relevant   to 




consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons which were 




merely  passive witnesses  and had joined the assembly  as  a matter  of 










                                                                                  14



idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the 




assembly.(Vide:  Masalti   v.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh,  AIR   1965   SC 




202)








16.     In K.M. Ravi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 16 SC 337, 




this   Court   observed   that   mere   presence   or   association   with   other 




members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them 




criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there 




is sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or knew 




the likelihood of commission of such an offending act. 








17.     Similarly in State of U.P. v. Krishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 




73, this Court held that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is 




established it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether 




any   specific   overt   act   has   been   assigned   to   any   accused.   Mere 




membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member 




of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others 




either in prosecution of common object or members of assembly knew 




were likely to be committed. 








18.      In Amerika Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2011) 4 SCC 677, 




this   Court   opined   that   for   a   member   of   unlawful   assembly   having 








                                                                               15



common object what is liable to be seen is as to whether there was any 




active   participation   and   the   presence   of   all   the   accused   persons   was 




with an active mind in furtherance of their common object. The law of 




vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC is crystal clear that even the 




mere   presence  in  the  unlawful  assembly,  but  with  an  active   mind, to 




achieve the common object makes such a person vicariously liable for 




the acts of the unlawful assembly.








19.         Regarding   the   application   of   Section   149,   the   following 




observations from Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205, 




are very relevant:






           "13.   ...   The   crucial   question   to   determine   is  


           whether   the   assembly   consisted   of   five   or   more  


           persons and whether the said persons entertained  


           one or more of the common objects, as specified  


           in   Section   141.   ...   The   word   `object'   means   the  


           purpose   or   design   and,   in   order   to   make   it  


           `common',   it   must   be   shared   by   all.   In   other  


           words,   the   object   should   be   common   to   the  


           persons,   who   compose   the   assembly,   that   is   to  


           say, they should all be aware of it and concur in  


           it.   A   common   object   may   be   formed   by   express  


           agreement   after   mutual   consultation,   but   that   is  


           by no means necessary. It may be formed at any  


           stage   by   all   or   a   few   members   of   the   assembly  


           and the other members may just join and adopt it.  


           Once formed, it need not continue to be the same.  


           It   may   be   modified   or   altered   or   abandoned   at  


           any   stage.   The   expression   `in   prosecution   of  


           common object' as appearing in Section 149 has  






                                                                                    16



            to be strictly construed as equivalent to `in order  


            to   attain   the   common   object'.   It   must   be  


            immediately   connected   with   the   common   object  


            by virtue of the nature of the object. There must  


            be community of object and the object may exist  


            only   up   to   a   particular   stage,   and   not  


            thereafter...."










20.    In  Bhanwar   Singh   v.   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   (2008)   16 




SCC 657, this Court held:




            "Hence,   the   common   object   of   the   unlawful  


            assembly   in   question   depends   firstly   on   whether  


            such   object   can   be   classified   as   one   of   those  


            described   in   Section   141   IPC.   Secondly,   such  


            common object need not be the product of prior  


            concert but, as per established law, may form on  


            the spur of the moment (see also  Sukha v. State  


            of   Rajasthan  AIR   1956   SC   513).   Finally,   the  


            nature of this common object is a question of fact  


            to be determined by considering nature of arms,  


            nature   of   the   assembly,   behaviour   of   the  


            members,   etc.   (see   also  Rachamreddi   Chenna  


            Reddy v. State of A.P. (1999) 3 SCC 97 )".








21.           Thus,   this   court   has   been   very   cautious   in   the   catena   of 




judgments   that   where   general   allegations   are   made   against   a   large 




number   of   persons   the   court   would   categorically   scrutinise   the 




evidence   and   hesitate   to   convict   the   large   number   of   persons   if   the 




evidence available on record is vague.   It is obligatory on the part of 




the   court   to   examine   that   if   the   offence   committed   is   not   in   direct 










                                                                                       17



prosecution of the common object, it yet may fall under second part of 




Section   149   IPC,   if   the   offence   was   such   as   the   members   knew   was 




likely to be committed. Further inference has to be drawn as what was 




the   number   of   persons;   how   many   of   them   were   merely   passive 




witnesses; what were their arms and weapons.   Number and nature of 




injuries is also relevant to be considered.   "Common object" may also 




be developed at the time of incident. 










22.         The   trial   court   after   appreciating   the   entire   facts   reached   the 




following conclusion: 






                "Further the manner in which the injuries were  


            inflicted on this witness as deposed by PWs.  2, 3  


            and 5 will go to show that the intention of accused  


            Nos. 1 to 17 who inflicted the injury on PW.2 was  


            with   a   common   object   to   killing   him.   Further   it  


            was   also   brought   out   in   the   evidence   of   these  


            witnesses that all the accused persons namely 1 to  


            17   were   holding   dangerous   weapons   in   their  


            hands.   Further  it  cannot be  said  that any  of the  


            accused  persons  have  not  involved  in  committing  


            the   offence   and   it   cannot   also   be   said   that   they  


            were not aware of the consequences of their act or  


            result   of   the   act   that   is   likely   to   be   resulted   on  


            account of the overt act committed by any one of  


            the   member   of   that   assembly.     Similarly,   the  


            evidence   of   PW3   will   go   to   show   that   all   these  


            accused   persons   have   criminally   trespassed   into  


            her   house   and   committed   the   crime.     It   is   also  


            brought   out   in   evidence   that   17th  accused  


            Sisupalan had beaten on her chest with hand and  










                                                                                         18



         also Ext. 3 scene mahazar will go to show that on  


         account of the act of accused Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 5  


         the   western   door   of   the   house   has   been   broken  


         open   and   caused   damage   to   the   same.     Further  


         some  of  the   vessels  also   damaged  in  the  incident  


         which is spoken to by PW3 and that is also evident  


         from the broken piece of wooden reaper with bold  


         (M.O.10)   and   also   the   steel   vessel   (M.O.16)   will  


         go   to   show   that   damage   has   been   caused   to   the  


         building of PW3 and also damage to the vessel.  It  


         is also brought out in the evidence of PW3 that the  


         food   articles   were   also   damaged   in   the   incident.  


         So it cannot be said that the accused persons who  


         are   the   members   of   the   assembly   do   not   know  


         about the consequence of their act.   So it can be  


         safely   concluded   that   accused   Nos.   1   to   17   have  


         formed   themselves   into   an   unlawful   assembly   for  


         the   purpose   of   rioting   with   deadly   weapons   and  


         also with the common object of causing murder  of  


         PW2   Sobhanan,   attacked   him   with   deadly  


         weapons in their hands and also for the purpose of  


         committing   the   crime,   they   criminally   trespassed  


         into   the   house   of   PW3   and   also   caused   simple  


         injury to her and caused damage to her house and  


         also the food articles in the house and thereby all  


         the   accused   persons   name   accused   Nos.   1   to   17  


         have   committed   the   offences   punishable   under  


         Sections   143,   147,   148,   323,   307,   449   and   427  


         read with Section 149 IPC."






23.    The High Court dealt with this issue and held as under:




        "The   accused   persons   armed   with   weapons   were  


        waiting in the house of accused No. 1 for return of  


        PW2   to   his   house   through   the   usual   pathway   after  


        attending the temple festival. Even when he tried to  


        escape   by   entering   into   the   house   of   PW3,   they  


        followed,   chased   and   inflicted   serious   injuries   on  


        him   at   the   house   of   PW3.   It   is   true   that   he   luckily  


        saved   his  life.   But,  when   his  father   and  PW1  came  






                                                                                       19



hearing the cry, they were also assaulted and father  


of   PW2   was   murdered.   Yet,   the   Sessions   Court  


convicted   for   murder   of   the   deceased   only   of   the  


persons participated in that act which was proved by  


evidence.   Others,   namely,   Accused   Nos.12,   13,   16  


and   17   were   convicted   only   for   offences   under  


Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 449 and 427 IPC  


read with Section 149 IPC.  It was deposed that A18  


was   unarmed   and   no   witness   has   stated   his   role.  


Therefore   he   was   acquitted.   Considering   the  


evidence in this case, the Sessions Court found that  


accused Nos.1 to 17 armed with weapons, formed an  


unlawful   assembly   with   a   common   object   of  


attacking   PW2   and     also   they   trespassed   into   the  


house   of   PW3   and   brutally   attacked   PW2.     Even  


though he suffered serious injuries, he escaped from  


death   by   luck.   Common   object   can   develop   during  


the course of incident at the spot.......... The Sessions  


court found that even though common object of the  


assembly   was   originally   to   attack   PW2,   when  


hearing the cry PW1 and the deceased arrived, they  


were  attacked  by   some of  the  persons   in  the  group  


which   attacked   PW2.   All   of   them   may   not   have  


shared   the   common   object   of   murdering   the  


deceased.   The   Sessions   Court   found   that   since  


Accused   Nos.12,   13   and   16   were   not   attributed   to  


have caused injury on the deceased, they cannot be  


held guilty under Section 302 IPC red with Section  


149 IPC as it cannot be positively inferred that they  


shared   the   common   intention   with   the   others   to  


murder   the   deceased.     We   are   of   the   opinion   that  


A10   and   A11   only   attacked   PW1   and   their  


involvement with regard to the deceased is equal to  


accused   Nos.  12  and  13.  Similarly,  A7   also  can  be  


compared   with   A12   and   13   as   it   is   not   proved  


beyond doubt that they shared the common object to  


inflict injuries on the deceased."  










                                                                       20



24.    It   is   evident   from   the   above   that   the   trial   court   as   well   as   the 




High   Court   have   proceeded   in   correct   perspective   and   applied   the 




provisions of Section 149 IPC correctly.  The facts have properly been 




analysed   and   appreciated.     In   the   instant   case,   seventeen   accused 




gathered   at   the   residence   of  Sudhakaran   (A.1)   and   waited   for   the 




appropriate  time knowing it well that Sobhanan (PW.2) would return 




from   the   temple.     Immediately,   after   seeing   him,   Sudhakaran   (A.1) 




shouted "chase him, chase him".  In order to save his life, he ran away 




and   entered   into   "Sophia   Bhawan".     However,   before   he   could   enter 




the house, he was inflicted injury by Sudhakaran (A.1) with the sword 




stick.   Sobhanan (PW.2) succeeded in entering the house and closing 




the door from inside.  The accused/appellants broke open the door and 




caused injuries of very serious nature to Sobhanan (PW.2) and left him 




under the impression that he had died.   The accused were having   one 




sword  stick,  two  choppers,   one  knife   and  twelve  iron   rods.   All  these 




weapons were used by the appellants for committing the offences and 




causing   injuries   to   their   victims.     Kuttappan   (deceased)   received   as 




many as 34 injuries.  In view thereof, if all the circumstances are taken 




into   consideration,   it   cannot   be   held   that   the   appellants   had   not 




participated to prosecute a `common object'.   Even if it was not so, it 










                                                                                             21



had   developed   at   the   time   of   incident.     In   view   thereof,   submission 




made   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   in   respect   of 




applicability of Section 149 IPC is not worth consideration. 








25.     We do not find any force in the submission made by the learned 




counsel   for   the   appellants   that   as   the   number   of   accused   had   been 




seventeen and the incident was over within a very short time, it was not 




possible for witnesses to give as detailed description as has been given 




in this case, and there had been several contradiction therein,  therefore, 




their   evidence   is   not   reliable.     In   such   a   case   even   if   minor 




contradictions appeared in the evidence of witnesses, it is to be ignored 




for   the   reason   that   it   is   natural   that   exact   version   of   the   incident 




revealing any minute detail i.e. meticulous exactitude of individual acts 




cannot   be   expected   from   the   eye-witnesses.   (See:  Abdul   Sayeed   v. 




State of  Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259). 






                In this case all the accused were very well known to the 




witnesses.   So their identification etc. has not been in issue.   As their 




participation being governed by second part of Section 149 IPC, overt 




act of an individual lost significance. 










                                                                                        22



        26.       However, the courts below have made distinction in two sets of 




        the   accused/appellants   and   that   attained   finality   as   the   State   did   not 




        prefer   any   appeal   against   the   same.   All   appellants   in   the   second   set 




        have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 




        IPC   etc.   and   awarded   sentence   of   10   years   rigorous   imprisonment. 




        These appellants have submitted the certificates of service of sentence 




        rendered by them.   According  to the said  certificate,  these appellants 




        have served 4-1/2 years to 8 years.  All of them have been granted bail 




        by   this   Court   vide   order   dated   9.12.2009.   In   the   facts   and 




        circumstances   of   the   case,   their   conviction   is   upheld,   however,   the 




        sentence   is   reduced   as   undergone.     Their   bail   bonds   are   discharged. 




        Appeal of the other appellants stands dismissed. 






                  Subject to the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. 










                                                                 ............................J.


                                                                 (P. SATHASIVAM)








                                                                 ...........................J.


          New Delhi,                                             (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)


          September 2, 2011










                                                                                              23