Important Point
The question whether the group of persons can be made liable for having caused murder of one or two persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC depends upon the facts and circumstances under which the murder took place. Whether the members of an unlawful assem­bly really had the common object to cause the murder of the deceased has to be decided on the basis of the nature of weapons used by such members, the manner and sequence of attack made by those members on the deceased and the settings and surroundings under which the occur­rence took place.

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-The appellants and two others, in all ten in number stood charged and were tried for having committed the offence under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuddahep for forming an unlawful assembly and causing the death of Racham Reddy Rama Subba Reddy and Racham Reddy Obula Konda Reddy and for attempting to kill Chinna Reddy. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused numbers 7 and 8 but convicted rest of the eight accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 148 IPC. They were, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 307/149 IPC. On appeal the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and hence the present appeal. During the pendency of appeal in this Court two of the appellants died, namely, accused Nos. 4 and 5 and as such the appeal stood abated as against them.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that there was some dispute six months prior to the date of occurrence between the prosecution party and the accused party on account of the fact that P.W. 1 who is the brother of the two deceased persons obstructed the passage to the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The two deceased persons who were broth­ers of P.W. 1 naturally supported P.W. 1. The further prosecution case is that a week prior to the date of occurrence there had been an altercation between the two factions on account of some theft having taken place. On the date of occurrence on 10.12.1985 P.W. 1 went to the house of his brother who is one of the deceased in the case and both of them went together to their field. By 12.00 noon while they were returning P.W. 1 was following his deceased brother, in front of the Flour Mill in the village the accused persons came armed with lethal weapons and accused No. 1 hacked the deceased with a sickle right on the road. Nine other accused persons then surrounded the deceased and attacked him with their respective weapons in their hands. P.W. 1 started running from the place to save his life and the accused persons also tried to chase him but could not catch hold of him. The accused per­sons then came back and proceeded to the second place of occurrence where P.W. 3 and the second deceased were returning. The accused persons then suddenly emerged from a place with the weapons in their hands and then brutally assaulted the second deceased. P.W. 3 went and informed P.W. 1 who was by that time near the dead body of the first deceased. P.W. 1 in the company of P.W. 3 came to the second place of occurrence which was nearby and then a complaint was drafted by P.W. 5 on the basis of information given by P.W. 1. In the meantime, the village servant P.W. 9 went to Rajupalem Police Station and informed the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 14 that two persons have been killed. This information was entered in the General Diary Exhibit P8 and the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 14 rushed to the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence P.W. 1 gave him the written report Exhibit P1 which was treated as First Information Report and then the police started investigation. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and after the accused persons being committed they stood their trial and were convicted, as already stated.

3. The prosecution case essentially hinges upon the oral testimony of P.W. 1 so far as the murder of deceased No. 1 is concerned, and on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 so far as the murder of deceased No. 2 is concerned. An essential feature in this case is that the occurrence took place between 1.00 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. and the Station Diary entry Exhibit P8 was made shortly thereafter and the First Information Report was given to P.W. 14 at the place of occurrence at 3.45 p.m. which not only gives a vivid account of the entire occurrence but also implicates all the accused persons ascribing positive role and, there­fore, the question of any deliberation amongst the member