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

2010 Supreme(SC) 471

2010 (4) Supreme 18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Adalat Pandit & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 716-717 of 2008
with
Thakur Singh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-122 of 2009
with
Gorakh Nath Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2008
with
Shri Thakur Ojha — Appellant
versus
The State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1907 of 2009
Decided on : 14-5-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere presence at the place of occurrence does not make a person part of unlawful assembly having common intention of committing an offence.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – On account of their mere presence at the place of occurrence persons cannot be held to be part of unlawful assembly and having common intention of committing an offence. (Para 8)

       (2003) 1 SCC 425 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w section 149 – No overt act attributed to the accused persons – They also did not carry the spear used in committing the offence of murder – Entitled to benefit of doubt. (Para 8)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w section 149 – Accused persons dragging the body of the deceased – This makes them part of the unlawful assembly which had the common object of eliminating (Para 9)

       (d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w section149 – Courts below recording concurrent findings of specific and overt acts against the accused persons – Conviction not liable to be interfered. (Para 10)

       (e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – When the medical doctor conducting the autopsy had expired, there will be no wrong if the post mortem report is proved by anther doctor. (Para 17)

       (2009) 13 SCC 790 – Distinguished

       (f) Partisan witness – Evidence of eye witnesses, if convincing and reliable, should be accepted even if they are somewhat partisan. (Para 17)

       AIR 1965 SC 202; (2009) 15 SCC 513 – Relied upon

       (2008) 16 SCC 529; (2009) 13 SCC 722; (2003) 12 SCC 352, (2002) 1 SCC 351 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case :

       11 accused persons were tried, convicted and sentenced for offences under section 302 r/w section 149, IPC. Two accused died in the meantime. The rest 9 persons filed appeal before the Supreme Court.

       Finding of the Court :

       1.Thakur Singh (A-1), Akhilesh Ojha (A-5) and Keshav Singh (A-9) entitled to benefit of doubt.

       2.Ram Pravesh Singh (A-2) and Jitendra Singh (A-6) were rightly convicted and sentenced.

       3.Thakur Ojha (A-4) who had actually fired the guns, Raj Nath Singh (A-7) and Adalat Pandit (A-10) were also rightly convicted and sentenced. Similar is the case of Gorakh Nath Singh (A-3).

       Result :

       The appeals of Thakur Singh (A-1), Akhilesh Ojha (A-5) and Keshav Singh (A-9) allowed.

       The appeals of Ram Pravesh Singh (A-2), Gorakh Nath Singh (A-3), Thakur Ojha (A-4), Jitendra Singh (A-6), Raj Nath Singh (A-7) and Adalat Pandit (A-10) dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1.This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 716-717 of 2008, Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-122 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 1907 of 2009. All these appeals are against the common judgment passed by the High Court, whereby the appeals filed by the appellants herein came to be dismissed. Initially, as many as 10 accused persons came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with Section 34 as also read with Sections 109 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short hereinafter) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that on the fateful day, i.e. 5.7.1973, at about 7 a.m., the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of one Shambhu Nath Singh and his brother Prabhu Nath Singh, both deceased persons, in pursuance of their common object. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by one Baijnath Singh and it was alleged therein that one Thakur Ojha (A-4), Patiram Ojha (now dead), Akhilesh Ojha (A-5), Jitendra Singh (A-6), Raj Nath Singh (A-7), Gorakh Nath Singh (A-3), Keshav Singh (A-9), Bachcha Singh (A-8), Adalat Pandit (A-10), Thakur Singh (A-1) and Ram Pravesh Singh (A-2) went to his Mango orchard standing on Plot No. 4905, situated in Mauza - Mohammadpur, P.S. Gorkha, Distt. Saran, which was situated at a distance of about three furlong from village for forcibly plucking mango fruits.

2.It was further stated by Baijnath Singh that he alongwith his two sons namely Shambhu Nath Singh and Prabhu Nath Singh went to his orchard and protested against the act of the accused persons in plucking the mangoes. It was stated that Pati Ram Ojha (the dead accused) ordered Thakur Ojha (A-4) to attack on those three persons, on which Thakur Ojha (A-4) fired two shots aiming at Shambhu Nath Singh, who was injured due to fire and tried to run away towards his house, but fell on the ground at some distance in the nearby orchard of one Arjun Singh. It was then contended that Gorakh Nath Singh (A-3) went after him and gave spear blow on the back of Shambhu Nath Singh while Shambhu Nath Singh was still lying on the ground. In the meantime, Thakur Ojha (A-4) again fired two shots on the elder son of Baijnath namely Prabhu Nath Singh, who also fell on the ground in the orchard of Arjun Singh. After he fell down, Raj Nath Singh (A-7), Bachcha Singh (A-8) and Adalat Pandit (A-10) rushed to Prabhu Nath Singh and indiscriminately assaulted him by means of spear and his body was dragged by Raj Nath Singh (A-7) and Ram Pravesh Singh (A-2). It was further stated in the FIR that on seeing this, Baijnath Singh asked himself to be killed; however, Patiram Ojha (dead accused) said that it was useless to cause the death of an old person like him and that he should better be left to flee. It was suggested that one Laxman Singh (PW-8), Arjun Singh, Bhrigunath Singh (PW-7), Ram Prasad Singh (PW-4) and others were present on the spot and had seen the entire incident. There was a fierce enmity between the two sides though they were related to each other, on account of ownership and possession of the said orchard and a civil dispute was pending in the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Saran.

3.The FIR was recorded by A.S.I. Abdul Malik of Garkha Police Station and the investigation ensued. The Investigating Officer arrested the dead accused Patiram Ojha, Thakur Ojha (A-4), Jitendra Singh (A-6), Raj Nath Singh (A-7), Keshav Singh (A-9), Bachcha Singh (A-8), Thakur Singh (A-1) and Ram Pravesh Singh (A-2) from the house of Raj Nath Singh (A-7). The Investigating Officer effected the search of the house and recovered a double barrel gun kept on the cot under the bed. Two spears were also recovered during the investigation, the blades of which were stained with blood. The seizures were effected and arrests were made. In the meantime, one Shantruhan Singh (PW-15), the Officer-in-charge, Garkha Police Station reach























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