IMPORTANT POINT
Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149 and 148-Murder- Unlawful assembly of about 15 persons-Common object-Animosity between parties over ancestral property- Appellants holding weapons came down from house of accused K and came to the temple where deceased was present -K while exhorting others to liquidate the deceased dealt blows with a hard and blunt substance on his head-Priest of the temple locked northern gate of the temple to save the deceased-However, appellant D broke open the lock and dragged the deceased outside, pursuant to which all dealt indiscriminate blows on him with lethal weapons killing him-Prosecution examined 17 witnesses, who were villagers, some outsiders, who were either relations of deceased or claimed to have visited village for resolution of their disputes-Plea of alibi accepted in respect of two accused persons-FIR lodged immediately-Acquittal of some of the accused persons will not entitle others to acquittal-Section 149 IPC rightly applied-Concurrent finding of conviction of accused held not liable to be interferred with-Convictions confirmed.
Held : We are not inclined to re-examine the whole of the prosecution case for finding out as to whether occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We find no reason to disbelieve any of the eyewitnesses. The trial Court as well as the High Court have after critical examination of their statements, rightly concluded that they were the truthful witnesses and that all the appellants in these appeals were present at the time of occurrence. Merely because the witnesses happened to be the relations of the deceased is not a ground to reject their testimony. Under the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid witnesses appear to be natural witnesses who were supposed to be at the place of occurrence. Time and again, it has been held by this Court that no interference would be made with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence, even if this Court was to take a different view on the evidence. The Court will normally not enter into reappraisal or the review of evidence unless the trial Court or the High Court is shown to have committed an error of law or procedure and the conclusions arrived at are perverse. This Court cannot enter into the credibility of the evidence with a view to substitute its opinion for that of the trial Court or the High Court. This Court may interfere where on proved facts, wrong inferences of law are shown to have been drawn. It needs to be emphasized that this Court is not a regular court of appeal to which every judgment of the High Court in criminal case may be brought up for scrutinizing its correctness. It is only in rare or exceptional case where there is some manifest illegality or grave or serious irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice that the Court would interfere with such findings of fact. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Fifteen persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ). Accused No. 9 (appellant No. 5 in the present appeals) additionally faced trial for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act ). Accused No. 2 Mahendra Rai (Appellant No. 8 in the present appeals) who was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was acquitted of the said charge but instead was convicted as afore-noted in terms of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Out of the 15 accused persons, two were acquitted and three died during pendency of the appeals before the High Court.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial and which formed the foundation of the prosecution case is essentially as follows:

3. On 17.8.1983, one Sarjug Rai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) lost his life allegedly at the hands of the accused. About 5-6 years preceding the incident when Sarjug Rai was killed there was a partition of the family properties. Kamal Rai was his nephew who nourished serious grudge against his uncle, as according to him there was unequal partition of ancestral properties. Said Kamal Rai, strongly believed that construction of new house and purchase of tractor, subsequent to partition by the deceased was made from cash which had not been divided during partition. Though motive appears to be trivial and also stale but where direct evidence is available, motive pales into insignificance. The accusations appearing from the first information report of Ram Babu Rai (PW-14), son of the deceased and also narrations made by the witnesses at trial are that on 17.8.1983 while deceased at about 8.00 a.m. had gone to a temple after taking holy dip in a pond, adjacent to the temple, the appellants holding weapons came down from the house of Kamal Rai and came to the temple, pursuant to which Kamal Rai while exhorting others to liquidate the deceased dealt blows with a hard and blunt substance on his head as he had been unfair to him in partitioning the ancestral properties. Dukha Sah (PW-6), the priest of the temple locked the northern gate of the temple to save the deceased. However, he could not be saved as accused-appellant Deosharan Rai broke open the lock and dragged the deceased outside, pursuant to which on exhortation made by Kamal Rai all dealt indiscriminate blows on him with lethal weapons which they were carrying. When Shatrughan Pandey (PW-1), Ram Chandra Rout (PW-2), Nandlal Pandey (PW-4) and Sita Saran Rai (PW-5) came to rescue on hearing alarms raised by the son of the deceased (PW-14), they could not proceed to rescue the deceased on being scared by the firing resorted to by accused-appellant Satya Narain Rai. Ram Babu Rai (PW-14) informed the police who visited village Bishanpur and recorded his statement, pursuant to which investigation commenced. The police during investigation apart from recording statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code ) visited the place of occurrence, and also made seizure of some offending articles from the place of occurrence. On conclusion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before the Court against all the 15 accused persons who were eventually put on trial. In the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication and examined 16 witnesses to counter the allegations attributed to them. Those examined by the prosecution were the villagers of Bishanpur, some outsiders, who were either relations of the deceased or claimed to have visited the village for holding panchayati for resolution of the dispute pending between the two parties, the doctor and also the police officer.

4. As noted supra, accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication due to animosity persisting between the parties. Three o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1201

IMPORTANT POINTAlthough no hard and fast rule can be laid down from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour.