2011 Supreme(SC) 843

2011 (6) Supreme 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ramachandran & Ors. Etc. — Appellants
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2006
Decided on : 2-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. For “common object”, it is not necessary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur of the moment. It is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them.
2. Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 449, 427 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC-Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of deceased and injuries to others by assaulting them with deadly weapons-Conviction by Trial Court-On appeals thereagainst High Court modified the order of the trial court to the extent that conviction of A7, A10 and A11 under Section 302 IPC was set aside- However, their conviction and sentence for other offences had been confirmed-Appeal- Trial court as well as High Court proceeded in correct perspective and applied the provisions of Section 149 IPC correctly- Instantly, seventeen accused gathered at residence of A.1 and waited for appropriate time knowing it well that PW.2 would return from temple- Immediately, after seeing him, A.1 shouted “chase him, chase him”- In order to save his life, he ran away and entered into “Sophia Bhawan”- However, before he could enter house, he was inflicted injury by A.1 with the sword stick- PW.2succeeded in entering house and closing the door from inside- Accused/appellants broke open the door and caused injuries of very serious nature to PW.2 and left him under the impression that he had died- The accused were having one sword stick, two choppers, one knife and twelve iron rods- All these weapons were used by appellants for committing the offences and causing injuries to their victims-Deceased received as many as 34 injuries- Taking all the circumstances into consideration, it could not be held that appellants had not participated to prosecute a `common object’- Appeal disposed off (Para 24)

        Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 149-Scope and Object-For “common object”, it is not necessary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them-In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members- Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it can be held that offence was such as members knew was likely to be committed- (Paras11,12)

        Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 149-Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act- For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability under the provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before and that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object (Para 14)

       Facts of the Case :

        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased and injuries to others by assaulting them with deadly weapons. Trial Court convicted accused persons. On appeals thereagainst High Court modified the order of the trial court to the extent that conviction of A7, A10 and A11 under Section 302 IPC was set aside. However, their conviction and sentence for other offences had been confirmed.

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

       Findings of the Court :

        Trial court as well as High Court proceeded in correct perspective and applied the provisions of Section 149 IPC correctly. The facts had properly been analysed and appreciated. In the instant case, seventeen accused gathered at the residence of A.1 and waited for appropriate time knowing it well that PW.2 would return from the temple. Immediately, after seeing him, A.1shouted “chase him, chase him”. In order to save his life, he ran away and entered into “Sophia Bhawan”. However, before he could enter house, he was inflicted injury by A.1 with the sword stick. PW.2succeeded in entering the house and closing the door from inside. The accused/appellants broke open the door and caused injuries of very serious nature to PW.2 and left him under the impression that he had died. The accused were having one sword stick, two choppers, one knife and twelve iron rods. All these weapons were used by appellants for committing the offences and causing injuries to their victims. Deceased received as many as 34 injuries. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, it could not be held that appellants had not participated to prosecute a `common object’. Appeal was disposed of.