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

2004 Supreme(SC) 91

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju : S.B.Sinha : Shri Gopal
Gopal And Another
Versus
Subhash And Others
Case No. : 961 of 1997
Date of Decision : 1/23/04
Advocates Appeared: Sushil Kumar Jain : Ruchi Kohli : H.D.Thanvi : Uma Datta : Tara Chandra Sharma : Neelam Sharma : Sandhya Goswami : N.Annapoorani

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 read with Sections148 and 149- Arms Act Section 27 - Unlawful Assembly-Common object - Conviction under Section 302/149,148 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act- High Court acquitted the respondents of the charges under Section 148 and 302/149 IPC - The High Court also acquitted Shankerlal and Maniram of the charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act but convicted them under Section 302/34 instead of Section 302/149- Held the view taken by the High Court as regard doubtful participation of the respondents was a possible view-Once it is held that the prosecution case as regard material aspects relating to implication of certain accused persons is doubtful, the judgment of the High Court could not be interfered, even if a different view is possible to be taken.[Paras 23 to 29]

B. Penal Code of India, Section 149 Common objection and common intention - The essence of the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code would be common object of the persons forming the assembly- It is necessary for constitution of the offence that the object would be common to the persons who compose the assembly, that is, that they should all be aware of it and concur in it-Furthermore, there must be some present and immediate purpose of carrying into effect the common object-A common object is different from a common intention insofar as in the former no prior consent is required, nor a prior meeting of minds before the attack would be required whereas an unlawful object can develop after the people get there and there need not be a prior meeting of minds.[Para 15]

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th May, 1997 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in DB Criminal No. 320/-87 whereby and whereunder the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges of commission of an offence under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The respondents herein together with Shankerlal and Maniram were charged under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to life imprisonment for alleged commission of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149. They were further sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of an alleged offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Two accused persons Shankerlal and Maniram were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 400/-

3. Allegedly, there were two groups in Kanwarpura Tehsil; one headed by Shri Ramnarayan accused and the other by the deceased Ram Kumar. Allegedly, a day prior to the date of incidence, an election of dairy society was conducted. At about 7 p.m. on 6.6.1986, Atma Ram PW1, Brijlal PW10, Ramnarayan PW5 and Rajaram were sitting on the chowki in the house belonging to Brijlal. They saw the accused persons coming out from the house of Ramnarayan, Sarpanch. Allegedly, Ramnarayan, Maniram and Shankerlal were armed with guns, Subhash with lathi and Manohar with pistol. They proceeded towards the house of Hansraj. Shankerlal armed with 12-bore gun entered into the house of Hansraj and the other accused persons proceeded in the lane adjacent and towards the west of the said house. Allegedly, Ramnarayan exhorted the others to kill Ramkumar whereupon Shankerlal fired a shot which hit Ramkumar. Another shot was allegedly fired by Maniram at Ramkumar but the same missed the target and hit the wall. Manohar also allegedly tried to fire but he was unsuccessful. Ramkumar, as a result of multiple injuries, died on the spot. The motive for commission of the offence apart from the parties belonging to separate factions and contesting the elections in which allegedly Ramnarayan won, related an incidence which occurred 25 or 26 days prior to the date of occurrence, whence Krishna trespassed into the house of Poosaram Meghwawl and a case under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was registered against Krishna and Ramnarayan, in connection wherewith allegedly Ramratan and deceased Ramkumar helped Poosaram. It was further alleged that Hanuman, brother of Shankerlal, after five days of the said incident, visited Poosaram and abused him whereupon he was apprehended by deceased Ramkumar, Prithvi and Ramratan and handed over to the police.

4. Before the Trial Court 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The Trial Court convicted all the five accused persons both under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302/149. As noticed hereinbefore. Shankerlal and Maniram were also convicted of an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. On appeal against the said judgment, the High Court acquitted the respondents herein of the charges both under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and as also Section 302/149 thereof. The High Court further acquitted Shankerlal and Maniram of the charges under Section 27 of the Arms act and converted the sentence under Section 302/149 passed against them to one under Section 302/34 and the sentence imposed on Shankerlal and Maniram further remained unaltered.

6. The High Court in its judgment while noticing the principles governing commission of an offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code found that the allegation against the respondents herein are omnibus in nature. The High Court noticed that the allegation to the effect that Manohar also attempted to fire his gun but missed was not correct as the same was not followed by a report of the ballistic expert. The High Court furth

























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