1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 302/149, 307/149, and 147 of the Penal Code — Appeal against High Court's confirmation of conviction. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1990 Supreme(SC) 478
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJI., K.N. SINGH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Yadav Lohar and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.172 of 1979, D/- 30-8-1990.
Mere presence in a crowd during a fight, without possessing weapons or committing any overt act, is insufficient to establish participation in an unlawful assembly or sustain a conviction under Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 149, 302 and 307 - Conviction based on mere presence in a crowd - Absence of weapons and overt acts - Participation in the commission of offences highly doubtful - Case not established beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentences set aside. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted by the trial court and the High Court for offences relating to murder, attempt to murder, and rioting. The lower courts recorded findings that the appellants were not armed with any weapons and committed no overt act during the incident. They were merely present in a crowd of 50 to 60 persons when a fight took place, leading to their conviction with the aid of Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the presence and participation of the appellants in the commission of the offences were highly doubtful and that no case had been made out against them beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether mere presence in a crowd, without the possession of weapons or the commission of any overt act, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere presence in a crowd during a fight, in the absence of weapons or any overt act, is insufficient to establish participation in an unlawful assembly or the commission of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the correctness of the conviction and sentences awarded by the lower courts. (Para 1 )
3. Appellants were unarmed, committed no overt act, and were merely present in a crowd; evidence failed to establish participation beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 2 )
4. Mere presence in a crowd without weapons or commission of an overt act is insufficient to establish participation in offences under Sections 147 and 149, IPC. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentences set aside — Bail bonds discharged. (Para 3 )
6. Does mere presence in a crowd justify conviction under Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
No. If the accused were not armed with weapons and committed no overt act, mere presence in a crowd is insufficient to establish participation or guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 2 )
7. What is the evidentiary requirement to sustain a conviction for participation in an unlawful assembly?
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an overt act or was armed, rather than merely being present in a crowd during the incident. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
The three appellants in the present appeal were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur for offences under Ss. 302/149, 307/149 and 147 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively. The conviction and the sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge was upheld by the High Courts order dated 6th April, 1978. The appellants challenged the correctness of the conviction by means of this appeal.
2. Appellant No. 2, Prem Chand Lohar, died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Thus the present appeal is confined to Yadav Lohar, appellant No. 1, and Khiroda Loharin, appellant No. 3.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. The Sessions Judge as well as the High Court both have recorded findings that appellants 1 and 3 were not armed with any weapons. There is further no finding that any of the two appellants committed any overt act in commission of the offences. They were merely present in a crowd of 50 to 60 persons when the fight took place and as a result of which they have been convicted by both the Courts with the aid of Ss. 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Having gone through the evidence on record, we do not find that any case has been made out against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants presence and participation in the commission of the offences for which they have been convicted is highly doubtful.
3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 2255
