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

2009 Supreme(SC) 62

2009(1) Supreme 370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Raj Nath — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5031 of 2007)
(With Crl. A. No. 77/2008 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2054 of 2008)
Decided on : 16-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :T.S. Doabia, Sr. Adv., Jaswant Persoya, Jagjit Singh Chhabra and Satish Vig, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG, Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Sahdev Singh and Anuvrat Sharma, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
‘Common object’ is different from a ‘common intention’.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – ‘Common object’ is different from a ‘common intention’ as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. (Para 8)

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Scope and ambit discussed. (Para 10)

        AIR 1956 SC 731; (1997) 3 SCC 747; (2002)8 SCC 381; SLP (Crl.) No.1494/2004 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. There was a litigation between Smt. Rama Devi and appellant Raj Nath resident of Nagla Tara in which Raj Nath lost in the litigation before court. In the said litigation, informant Vijay Bahadur had helped Smt. Rama Devi.

        2. Four months prior to the incident Rama Devi had sold 16 bighas of her land to Lokeshwar Nath (PW-2) nephew of informant which sale was not relished by the appellant Raj Nath and his sons and they started nurturing animosity for the informant.

        3. On the date of the incident i.e. 5.6.1978 at 6.00 P.M. Vijay Bahadur along with his sons Narendra Nath and Mahendra accompanied by Lokeshwar Nath and Shrawan Kumar had gone to the house of his cousin Ram Prakash in village Nagla Tara, also the village of the accused. While returning to their village the accused appellants Raj Nath, his sons Satyendra and Surendra, Gajendra, Ram Kripal and Govind came there. They opened fire at the prosecution party. Lalit Kumar (the ‘deceased no.1’) sustained gunshot injury and died instantaneously. Narendra Nath and Shrawan Kumar sustained firearm injuries and fell down. Lokeshwar Nath and Mahendra Nath also sustained firearm injuries. When the injured were being transported to the hospital, injured Narendra Nath (deceased no.2) lost his life in the way.

        4. Trial Court found the prosecution case to have been established and recorded conviction.

        5. The High Court held that because of application of Section 149 IPC the prosecution case has been fully established.

       Finding of the Court :

        Section 149 IPC has clear application to the facts of the case.

       Result : Appeals are dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the five appellants before the High Court. The present appellants, his two sons Yatindra and Surendra alongwith Ram Kripal, Gajendra and Govind were tried by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The trial Court acquitted accused Govind but rest of the five accused were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC. Life sentence, five years rigorous imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively were imposed.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The informant Vijay Bahadur is a resident of village Sakaragarhi, P.S. Kishni, district Mainpuri. There was a litigation between Smt. Rama Devi and appellant Raj Nath resident of Nagla Tara in which Raj Nath lost in the litigation before court. In the said litigation, informant Vijay Bahadur had helped Smt. Rama Devi. Four months prior to the incident Rama Devi had sold 16 bighas of her land to Lokeshwar Nath (PW-2) nephew of informant which sale was not relished by the appellant Raj Nath and his sons and they started nurturing animosity for the informant. On 18.5.1978 appellant Raj Nath and others plucked Jackfruits from trees standing over the land purchased by Lokeshwar Nath regarding which a first information report was lodged by him.

On the date of the incident i.e. 5.6.1978 at 6.00 P.M. Vijay Bahadur along with his sons Narendra Nath and Mahendra accompanied by Lokeshwar Nath and Shrawan Kumar had gone to the house of his cousin Ram Prakash in village Nagla Tara, also the village of the accused, for hearing Bhagwat and to participate in the feast thereafter. After taking meal they were returning to their village along with Murari Lal and Mitthu Lal Gadaria. When they reached near the house of Kalka Prasad at 6 p.m. the accused appellants Raj Nath, his sons Satyendra and Surendra, Gajendra, Ram Kripal and Govind came there from the south western corner of the brick wall and threatened that they will teach a lesson to Lokeshwar Nath for purchasing the land and immediately thereafter appellant Raj Nath with his licensed gun and rest of the appellants with their country made pistols opened fire at the prosecution party. Lalit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased no.1’) sustained gunshot injury and died instantaneously. Narendra Nath and Shrawan Kumar sustained firearm injuries and fell down at a short distance. Lokeshwar Nath and Mahendra Nath also sustained firearm injuries. Gun fire attracted Prem Narayan and many others to the place of the incident. When the injured were being transported to the hospital in the bullock cart by the informant, injured Narendra Nath (hereinafter referred to as deceased no.2) lost his life in the way. Shrawan Kumar, Mahendra and Lokeshwar Nath were dispatched to the District Hospital, Mainpuri. Informant got the FIR (Ex.Ka-7) of the said incident scribed through one Arun Kumar and lodged it at police station Kishni on the same day at 10.30 p.m. covering a distance of 8 miles south. Lajja Ram PW-4 Constable clerk prepared the chik Fir Ex. Ka-6 and G.D. entry Ex.Ka-7 and the investigation was immediately engineered by Mahendra Prasad Singh S.O. PW-10.

Investigating Officer proceeded to the village Kusmara where the corpse of Narendra was lying and there he conducted the inquest on his dead body as Ex.Ka-38. Thereafter, he came to the place of the incident in village Nagla Tara near the dead body of Lalit Kumar and conducted the inquest. Thereafter he conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-47 collected blood stained and plain earth Ex. Ka-48. He als














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