2008 Supreme(SC) 1408

2008(7) Supreme 509
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Shankaraya Naik & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 512/2001
Decided on : 22-09-08

IMPORTANT POINT
Where accused had come to place of incident duly armed and had immediately proceeded with attack on opposite party and had caused serious injuries to deceased and to as many as eight witnesses, it could be readily inferred that common object of unlawful assembly was to cause the murder of deceased or to cause an assault and injury on injured witnesses.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323 and 504 read with Section 149 – Prosecution of accused persons eight in number for coming to the place of incident armed with lethal weapons and for causing severe injuries leading to death of one person and injuries to eight others- Trial court held that though assault on deceased and other injured in hands of accused had been proved, prosecution had failed to establish common object of unlawful assembly to cause murder of deceased or causing an assault and injury on injured witnesses and in that view of the matter, the accused were liable to be convicted for their individual acts – Applying said principle, trial court acquitted A1, A7 and A8 while convicting A2 to A6 – State Appeal – Allowed by High Court-Evidence on record that accused had come to place of incident duly armed and had immediately proceeded with attack on opposite party and had caused serious injuries to deceased and to as many as eight witnesses – Facts preceding the attack showed that there was great animosity between parties – It could therefore, be inferred that when the accused had come armed with lethal weapons, chance that somebody might be killed was a real possibility – No delay in the lodging of the FIR in the facts of the case – The incident had happened at 6.30 p.m. on 25th August, 1995, the injured had reached the hospital by 8 p.m. and the FIR had been lodged at the police station by an injured eye witness eight hours later – Taking into account normal human conduct and fact that many persons had sustained injuries, one of whom had subsequently died, a delay of eight hours could, by no stretch of imagination, be dubbed as inordinate – Even though there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses but they were bound to appear in the statements of witnesses recorded long after incident – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 6 to 10)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Accused persons eight in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for coming to the place of incident armed with lethal weapons and for causing severe injuries leading to death of one person and injuries to eight others. Trial court held that though assault on deceased and other injured in hands of accused had been proved, prosecution had failed to establish common object of unlawful assembly to cause murder of deceased or causing an assault and injury on injured witnesses and in that view of the matter, the accused were liable to be convicted for their individual acts. Applying said principle, trial court acquitted A1 , A7 and A8 while convicting A2 to A6.State Appeal there against was allowed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Evidence on record showed that accused had come to place of incident duly armed and had immediately proceeded with attack on opposite party and had caused serious injuries to deceased and to as many as eight witnesses. Facts preceding the attack showed that there was great animosity between parties. It could therefore, be inferred that when the accused had come armed with lethal weapons, chance that somebody might be killed was a real possibility. There was no delay in the lodging of the FIR in the facts of the case. The incident had happened at 6.30 p.m. on 25th August, 1995, the injured had reached the hospital by 8 p.m. and the FIR had been lodged at the police station by an injured eye witness eight hours later.Taking into account normal human conduct and fact that many persons had sustained injuries, one of whom had subsequently died, a delay of eight hours could, by no stretch of imagination, be dubbed as inordinate. Even though there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses but they were bound to appear in the statements of witnesses recorded long after incident. Appeal having no merit, was dismissed

       Result : Appeal dismissed.