SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(SC) 47

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
9th May 1956
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., BHAGWATI AND S.K. DAS, JJ.
Chikkarange Gowda and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Mysore ..... .Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. R. Chaudhury and Mr. K. R. Krishnaswami, Advocates - for Appellants; Mr. G. Channappa, Asst. Advocate General, Mysore and Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocate-for Respondent.

Advocates:
G.Channappa, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.R.KRISHNASWAMY, P.G.COKHALE

Headnote: Penal Code, Sections 302, 149, 34 -Scope-Distinction between Sections 34 and 149.

       Held: (1) "It is quite clear to us that 011 the finding of the High Court with regard to the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conviction of the appellants for an offence under S. 302 read with S. 149, Penal Code cannot be sustained. The first essential element of S. 149 is the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly; the second essential part is that the offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.

       "In the case-before us, the learned Judges of the High Court held that the object of the unlawful assembly was merely to administer a chastisement to Putte Gowda. The learned Judges of the High Court did not held that though the common object was to chastise Putte Gowda, the members of the unlawful assembly knew that Putte Gowda was likely to be killed in prosecution of that common object. That being the position the conviction under S. 302 read with S. 149, Penal Code was not justified in law."1

       (o) "The leading feature of S. 34 is the element of participation in action, whereas membership of the assembly at the time of the committing of the offence is the important element in S. 149. The two sections have a certain resemblance and may to a certain extent overlap, but it cannot be said that both have the same meaning.

       (4) As the finding of the Court was that none of the members of the unlawful assembly had the intention to kill the deceased nor did any of them know that the deceased was likely to be killed in prosecution of the common object of chastisement and as the charge gave no notice to the accused that they had a separate common intention of killing the deceased different from that of the other members of the unlawful assembly, conviction of the accused who had not caused any fatal injury of an offence under S. 302 read with S. 149 or S. 34 could not be sustained.

       (4) Section 34 embodies a principle of joint lab lity in the doing of criminal act and the essence of that liability is the existence of a common insention.- Article 136-Criminal trial-Application of evidence Questions of fact.

       Held: "It is, however, a well-settled practice of this Court that except where there has been an illegality, or an irregularity of procedure, or a violation of the principles of natural justice, resulting in an absence of fair trial or a gross miscarriage of justice, this Court does not permit a third review of evidence with regard to questions of fact in cases in which two Courts of fact have appreciated and assessed the evidence with regard to such questions." (Per S. K. Das J.) - Section 342-Non-compliance with section-Effect of.

       Held: “This Court has, on more than one occasion, stated that compliance with the provisions of S. 342 is not a mere idle formality and we are in agreement with the comment made by the learned Judges of the High Court that in this case the examination of the circumstances appearing against them was neither full nor very satisfactory. We also agree with them that no serious prejudice was caused-such as to vitiate the whole trial." (Per S.K. Das J :)

Judgement

S. K. DAS J. - This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Mysore, dated 22-7-1954, by which the convictions and sentences of the appellants were confirmed and their appeals dismissed by the said High Court.

2. The appellants are four in number, (1) Chikkaragne Gowda (accused 1), (2) Govindaraju (accused 3), (3) Govinda Gowda (accused (4), (4) Mathi Kulla (accused 19). The appellants, along with several others, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mysore, who convicted them of the offences under Ss. 148, 302, and 302 read with Ss. 34 and 149 Penal Code. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under S. 148 Penal Code and to transportation for life for the offences under S. 302 and S. 302 read with Ss. 34 and 149, Penal Code.

Either during the trial or at the time of recording the convictions, the learned Sessions Judge did not make any distinction, nor did he clearly state which of the appellants were guilty of the substantive offence of murder under S. 302 Penal Code, and which of them were guilty of the offence under S. 302 read with S. 149 Penal Code, or on the principle of liability embodied in S. 34, Penal Code. In the High Court also no such distinction appears to have been clearly made, and the concluding paragraph of the judgment of the High Court simply stated that the convictions and sentences of the appellants were confirmed and their appeals were dismissed.

3. It is not necessary to say anything about those others who were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge and whose convictions were upheld by the High Court of Mysore, but who have preferred no appeals to this Court. The facts so far as they are relevant for the purpose. of this appeal may be very shortly stated. There were two brothers named Putte Gowda and Nanje Gowda. On 18-4-1951 the two brothers were in the house of one Madamman, a concubine of Putte Gowda, in the town of Talkad, stated to be a fairly populous town and a place of pilgrimage situate at a distance of about 30 miles from Mysore.

At about noon on that day, a mob of persons numbering about more than a hundred, rushed towards the house, sprinkled kerosene oil on the roof, and started burning the house. When the inmates of the house came out, the two brothers (Putte Gowda and Nanje Gowda) were brutally assaulted. Putte Gowda died then and there. Nanje Gowda lay unconscious and was taken to the hospital where he expired the same evening, the first information report of the occurrence was sent by the Daffadar to the Inspector of Police, who arrived the same night and made a preliminary investigation.

So far as the four appellants are concerned, the allegations was that they were members of the aforesaid mob: and that appellant 1 (Chikkarange Gowda) hit Putte Gowda on the abdomen with a cutting instrument and appellant 4 (Mathi Kulla ) hit Putte Gowda on the Knee with a chopper; the second appellant Govindaraju, it was alleged, hit Nanje Gowda with a spear, and the third appellant Govinda Gowda hit Nanje Gowda on the head with an axe.

4. We have already stated that several charges were framed against the appellants. It is necessary to read at least one of the charges, viz., the charge which was framed for the offence stated to be under S. 302 read with Ss. 149 and 34, Penal Code; because much of the argument before us has centered round that charge. The fifth charge against appellant 1 was in these terms:

"That you on or about the 18th day of April, 1951 at Talkad were member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object or intention or such as you knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object or intention namely in killing Putte Gowda, caused the death of Putte Gowda and Nanje Gowda, and you are thereby under S. 149 read with S. 34, Penal Code, guilty of causing the said murders, an offence punishable under S. 302 Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session."

Against the oth





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top