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

2007 Supreme(SC) 762

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Sunil Balkrishna BhoirPETITIONER
versus
The State of MaharashtraRESPONDENT
Appeal (crl.) 415 of 2006
Decided on 15/05/2007

The need to establish the initial common object and the interpretation of Section 149 IPC in cases involving multiple accused persons.

Headnote:

Common Object - Murder - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 452 of the Indian Penal Code - The judgment discusses the nature of involvement of the appellants, the identification of the accused persons, and the application of the test of common object. The court analyzes the evidence, the injuries sustained, and the lack of specific overt acts attributed to the appellants. It interprets the provisions of Section 149 IPC and emphasizes the need to establish the initial common object. The court concludes that no case had been made out against the appellants to arrive at a conclusion that they are guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302/149.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the murder of Ramdas and the involvement of 7 accused persons charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case revolves around a dispute over a gold pendant, leading to a scuffle and ultimately the murder of Ramdas at his house.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that no case had been made out against the appellants to establish their guilt under Section 302/149. It assumed their guilt under Section 452 but directed their release due to the time spent in custody.

Issues: The nature of involvement of the appellants, the identification of the accused persons, and the application of the test of common object.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish the initial common object and analyzed the evidence and injuries sustained to conclude that the appellants were not guilty under Section 302/149.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The appellants were directed to be set at liberty in connection with certain other offences.

JUDGMENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 417 OF 2006

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2006

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. These appeals arising out of the judgment and order dated 1.2.2005 passed by a division Bench of the Bombay High Court were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Altogether 7 persons were charged for commission of murder of one Ramdas on 3.2.1987 at 9 p.m. at his house. The accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused

No. 3 was also charged for causing simple hurt to P.W. 1 Kishor. The learned Trial Judge convicted the accused persons. The High Court has affirmed the said judgment. It is stated that during the course of the trial and/or pendency of the appeal, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have expired. Accused No. 6 has not preferred any special leave petition before us.

2. The motive for commission of the offence is said to be that the deceased and accused no. 1 had quarreled with each other about a fortnight prior to the date of incident.

3. Prosecution case is said to be as under :

On 3.2.1987, the deceased Ramdas and his friend Kishor, P.W. 1, the first informant were standing in front of the deceaseds house. All the accused persons allegedly came there at about 7.30 in the evening. Accused No. 1 asked for a gold pendent from the deceased Ramdas which was the subject matter of the dispute between the parties and in relation whereto quarrel had taken place as the earlier occasion. The deceased, in response thereto is said to have stated, that he had returned the said gold pendent to some persons hailing from Panchpakhadi area. At that the accused No. 2 allegedly caught hold of the shirt of the deceased, a scuffle ensued between the accused No. 2 and the deceased. P.W. 1 with the wife of the accused No. 1 intervened and separated them. Allegedly, the deceased touched the person of the wife of accused no. 1, for which complaints were made by both the parties before the Outpost of the Police at Kopri. However, no report was accepted and the police officers said to have pacified allegedly pacified both the parties and sent them back. On 3.2.1987 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W. 1 came to the house of the deceased. They went to a pan stall and took a round in the Bazar. At about 9.00 p.m. both of them came back to the house of the deceased. Ramdas expressed his desire to have his dinner and requested P.W. 1 at his place to wait whereafter he promised to go to the complainants house. While P.W. 1 was sitting on the cot in the front room of the deceaseds house and the deceased Ramdas had been taking his dinner, he saw 6 to 7 persons coming to the front of the house. When he went out to see as to who they were, found the accused persons standing there. Allegedly, accused No. 2 was having a knife in his hands, and the accused Nos. 3 to 6 were having swords in their hands. P.W. 1 was asked to call the deceased to which he replied that he was taking his dinner, and they could talk to him after he finished taking meal. He was then allegedly assaulted by accused no. 3 by a sword by its blunt side on the shoulder, whereafter the accused entered into the house of the deceased. Baburao, father of the deceased who examined himself as P.W. 5 tried to resist them and in the process, caught hold of the sword which was in the hands of the accused no. 6 resulting in sustaining of bleeding injuries. The accused allegedly entered into the room. The deceased was assaulted with kicks and fist blows. Accused No. 2, Anil Mhatre stabbed the deceased Ramdas with a knife. While the accused persons were going out of the house, Bhaskar, brother of the deceased came whereupon accused No. 2 asked him not to enter into the house. While P.W. 1 was going to report the matter to the police Outpost Kopri, he met the other brother of the deceased, Sudhakar. Sudhakar was asked by P.W. 1 to bring the deceased to the police outpost, and he went to the police outp










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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