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

2011 Supreme(SC) 97

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
Kanaka Rekha Naik
Versus
Manoj Kumar Pradhan & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8173 OF 2010
Decided on : 25-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Colin Gonsalves and P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Lansinglu Rongmei, Dibya Pariccha, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Sagar, S.S. Shamshery, Bhupender Yadav, Bala Subrahmaniyam, Ms. Jyotika Kalra and Suresh Chandra, Advocates.

Headnote:A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482, INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.147, S.149, S.302, S.326:- Granting of bail pending the criminal appeal only one of the appellant on the sole ground of that he is an M.L.A. -Serious charges of rioting and causing grievous injury to the deceased. - Even the conviction order is not suspended - Held no separate consideration for the representatives of people as a class separate from the others while granting bail. - Matter remanded back to the High Court setting aside the bail granted for fresh consideration on merits.

Judgment :

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns the order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Miscellaneous Case No. 891 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2010, whereby the High Court has granted bail to the respondent Manoj Kumar Pradhan, a sitting M.L.A., who has been convicted under Sections 147, 326 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

3. The appellant herein is the wife of the deceased who was killed and burnt during the Kandhamal riots in Orissa in the year 2008.

4. The trial Court found that at the time of occurrence, the present respondent along with others obstructed the deceased and his family members at Barepanga. Thereafter, the rioters arrived there being called by them. The trial Court observed:

"They became part of the unlawful assembly after the arrival of the rioters.

...

At that time the members of the unlawful assembly were armed with deadly weapons like tangia (axe), knife etc. which, used as weapons of offence is likely to cause death. Some members of the unlawful assembly started assaulting the deceased brutally and mercilessly immediately arriving there. Thereafter, some members of the mob burnt him there. Arrival of several persons of ore than five at the place of occurrence, armed with deadly weapons, being called by the accused persons and assaulting the deceased with various weapons clearly indicate that the common object of such unlawful assembly was to show criminal force or to cause violence and to commit hurt to the deceased with such weapons which endangered his life which amounts to cause grievous hurt. From their behaviour and conduct at the spot the same is apparent.

...

While assaulting the deceased, some members of the unlawful assembly exceeded their power and brutally killed the deceased at the spot beyond the common object of the unlawful assembly. Thereafter, some members of such unlawful assembly set fire to him. After killing him, some members of the unlawful assembly thought it prudent to wipe out the evidence of murder and accordingly they buried the burnt dead body of the deceased...

All the members of the unlawful assembly including the present two accused persons ... can be held guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149, IPC as they shared the common object of the unlawful assembly to cause grievous hurt to the deceased...

After critical evaluation of the entire materials and the position of law, it is found that both the accused were involved for commission of the offence of rioting punishable under Section 147, IPC on the day of occurrence at the spot.

...with the same materials they are found guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Section 147 and 326/149, IPC not under Section 302/149, IPC and I convict them there under".

5. The trial Court also made a separate order of sentence which is as under:

"Convict Manoj Ku. Pradhan is a responsible person of the locality and he is also a public representative. Commission of riot by him with others can not be considered lightly. The crime committed by the convicts was not only against the individual victim but also the same was against the society at large. It is required under the law that punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should be conformed to and being consisted with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated.

Keeping in view such principle and the circumstances under which the offence was committed if the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-each for the offence under Section 326/149, IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 147, IPC it will meet the ends of justice. Both the convicts are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500













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