SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th March 1954
M.C. MAHAJAN, C.J.I., BOSE AND GHULAM HASAN, JJ.
Gajanand and others, Appellants,
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 20 of 1952 and 69 of 1953.
Raghunath Dubey, Caveator.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal , Advocate, with him), (in No. 20 of 52) and Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Senior Advocate (Messrs. K. N. Agarwala and S.S. Shukla, Advocates, with him), (in No. 69 of 53), for Appellants, Dr. M.H. Faruqi and Mr. C. P. Lal , Advocates, for Respondents (in both the Appellants) Messrs. K.N. Agarwala and S.S. Shukla, Advocates, (in No. 20 of 52) and Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), (in No. 69 of 53), for Caveator.
Held: "(I) When both sides mean to fight and there is a pitched battle, the question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight depends on the tactics adopted by the rival commanders.
"There can be no question of a free fight in the present case, as there is a clear finding of the High Court that Anjaninandans party were the aggressors. Having regard to the finding reached by the High Court that the riot took place at the narrow path as a result of the dispute about the Nipali Pilgrim and the further fact that Gajanands party received more numerous injuries one of which was fatal, it is obvious that Gajanands party cannot be said to have constituted an unlawful assembly. Gajanands party was engaged in the peaceful pursuit of worship at their own takhat and was busy attending to the Puja for the Nepali pilgrim. It is not suggested that at that point of time they were members of an unlawful assembly. There is no material to justify the conclusion that they became members of the unlawful assembly at any time thereafter.
"It was the party of Anjaninandan who left their place and came to Gajanands takhat, presumably raising a dispute over the offering made by the Nepali pilgrim. They came armed with deadly weapons and one of them inflicted a severe blow on Sukku which resulted in his death and other received as many as 27 injuries. In these circumstances it is not possible to suggest that both parties were pre-determined for a trial of strength and had a free fight. Gajanands party were the worst sufferers and though they also inflicted injuries on the other side, they did so in the exercise of their right of self-defence." (per Ghulam Hasan J.)
(2) "Under section 149 the liability of the other members for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the offence actually -committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Such knowledge may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms or behaviour, at or before the scene of act in. If such. -knowledge may not reasonably be attributed to the other members of the assembly then their liability for the offence committed during the occurrence does not arise?
"We agree with this statement of the law.
"The question is whether such knowledge can be attributed to the appellants who were themselves not armed with sharp edged weapons; The evidence on this point is completely lacking. The appellants had only lathis which may possibly account for injuries Nos. 2 and 3 on Sukkus left arm and left hand but they cannot be held liable for murder by invoking the aid of section 149, I.P.C. According to the evidence only two persons were armed with deadly weapons. Both of them were acquitted .and Sosa, who is alleged to have had a spear, is absconding. We are not prepared therefore to ascribe any knowledge of the existence of deadly weapons to the appellants, much less that they would be used in order to cause death.
Accordingly we hold that the appellants are not guilty of the offence under section 302/149 I.P.C." (Ibid)
Judgment
GHULAM HASAN, J. : These appeals filed by special leave granted on different dates arise out of two separate judgments passed by the Allahabad High Court on March 20, 1950. They relate to an occurrence of riot which took place at Manikarnika Ghat, Banaras, on December 9, 1947, at about 1 P. M. They have been heard together and will be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The plan prepared in the case shows that Manikarnika Ghat has a tank known as the Manikarnika Kund. To the south of the Kund is a narrow lane about 7 feet wide and towards further south is a stone platform called Takhat Hazara . To the east of Takhat Hazara is the Takhat of Gajanand. Towards the east of Gajanand s Takhat is the Sindia Ghat and on the west of Takhat Hazara is a stone-paved platform and to the west of this platform there is a place called "Charan Paduka". To the south of the platform there is Chunawali-Marhi where Anjaninandan s Takhats are kept. To the west of Takhat Hazara there is a place called dasgatra where Daswan ceremonies are usually held.
3. There are two rival group of Pandas at the Ghat, one led by Anjaninandan and the other by Gajanand. The Pandas, as is well-known, minister to the needs of pilgrims visiting Banaras. It is common ground that there is a long-standing enmity between the rival groups of Anjaninandan and Gajanand. It is also not disputed that a riot took place on December 9, 1947, at about 1 P.M. at Manikarnika Ghat. In the riot Gajanand s group lost one of their number called- Sukkhu and the party as a whole received as many as 31 injuries including the four injuries on the deceased Sukkhu which consisted of incised, contused and lacerated wounds and abrasions.
The injuries received by Anjaninandan group were less numerous and less dangerous; altogether his party received ten injuries. Both sides were admittedly armed with sharp edged weapons. Two reports were made. One was made at 1 P.M. by Chammar, a servant of Gajanand, at Police Station Chowk, 2 furlongs away from the scene of occurrence and the other was made by Raghunath Dube at 1-30 P.M. on behalf of the rival group. The reports gave conflicting versions of the occurrence. One version was that when the Daswan ceremony of Pandit Raghunath Sharma was being performed at Chuna-wali-Marhi and the persons attending it were having their heads shaved, fifteen or sixteen persons, including Gajanand, came up and started attacking the party of Anjaninandan.
The contrary version was that Gajanand with his servants was busy performing the Puja for a pilgrim from Nepal when Anjaninandan came up with his men armed with gandasa, spears and lathis. Anjaninandan demanded his 1/4th share of the offering which Gajanand refused. This infuriated him and he abused Gajanand and ordered his men to attack. Gajanand s men in warding off the blow struck in self-defence. Both sides received various injuries during the riot, Sukkhu having lost his life. Fifteen persons of Gajanand s group and twelve of Anjaninandan s including the two leaders, were sent up to stand their trial for offences under section 147, sections 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149, I.P.C.
Against the latter group there was the additional charge under section 302//149, I.P.C. for the murder of Sukkhu. There were two separate trials. The learned Sessions Judge convicted five of Anjaninandan s group and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. He also convicted them under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to transportation for life but as in the opinion of the Sessions Judge Lalji had caused the fatal injury to Sukkhu with a gandasa, he passed a capital sentence against him. In the cross case all the accused were acquitted on the finding that the prosecution story was inherently improbable and unworthy of acceptance.
The five persons convicted on the side of Anjaninandan appealed to the High Court, while the Government filed an appeal against the order of acquittal. The High Court acquitted Lalji and a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.