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

2014 Supreme(SC) 1070

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra, JJ.
Om Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 2006
With
Radhey Shyam and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1103 of 2006
With
Mange Ram and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1104 of 2006
Decided on : 16.04.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Mr. Ram Niwas Kush, Mr. Jetendra Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Mr. S.K. Sabharwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Section 149/302 – Rigorous imprisonment – Offence of Murder - Injury - During his examination by medical officer he succumbed to his injuries at and hospital staff informed nearby police station about his death - Investigating Officer recorded statement of and on that base registered an FIR criminal law was set in motion – Held, Common object of an unlawful assembly can also be gathered from nature of assembly weapons used by its members and behavior of assembly at or before scene of occurrence - It cannot be stated as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proven against person who is alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly it cannot be held that he is a member of assembly - What is really required to be seen is that member of unlawful assembly should have understood that assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of acts which fall within purview of Section 141 Indian Penal Code core of offence is word object which means purpose or design and in order to make it common it should be shared by all - Needless to say, the burden is on prosecution - It is required to establish whether accused persons were present and whether they shared common object - It is also an accepted principle that number and nature of injuries is a relevant fact to deduce that common object has developed at time of incident - Eye witnesses who are natural witnesses being brothers have deposed in an unequivocal manner about the assault by all accused persons common object is clearly evident - In such a situation attribution of specific individual overt act has no role to play - All requisite tests to attract Section 149 Indian Penal Code have been established by prosecution In fact Section 149 make it clear that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of that assembly or such as members of assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object every person who, at time of committing of that offence is a member of same assembly, is guilty of that offence and that emphatically brings out the principle that punishment prescribed by Section 149 is in a sense vicarious and does not always proceed on basis that offence has been actually committed by every member of unlawful assembly - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 18.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78-DB & 146-DB of 1997 with Criminal Revision No. 219 of 1997 whereby the Court has declined to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1993 for the offences Under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and affirmed the sentences of imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.1000/- by each with the default clause Under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of two years Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code with the stipulation that both the sentences shall be concurrent.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution version is that on 28.06.1993 the informant, Satbir Singh, PW 3, along with his two brothers, namely, Mahinder Singh, PW 7 and Prabhu Dayal (deceased) had gone to Hisar to enroll themselves in the Border Security Force for which interviews were being held at Hisar. About 3.00 p.m. all of them returned from Hisar in a Mechanised Cart (Pater Rehra) and alighted at the bus stand of their village, Sadalpur. At that time, the accused-Appellants, namely, Man Singh, Radhey Sham, Bhal Singh, Ram Kanwar, Raja Ram, Mange Ram, Kirpa Ram and Prem Singh emerged from the rear of Kotha (chamber), located nearby, Het Ram armed with a gun and all others armed with lathis. All of them raised a lalkara with the intention to assault the informant and his two brothers, Mahinder Singh and Prabhu Dayal, as the later had earlier caused injuries to them. Forming an unlawful assembly, with the common object they inflicted injuries on Prabhu Dayal with their lathis and butt of the gun. Prabhu Dayal fell down on the road. Being scared, the informant and his brother Mahinder Singh ran away and stood near the wall of the water reservoir. Thereafter, Om Prakash came on a tractor bearing registration No. HR-20A-8022, ran over Prabhu Dayal and fled away from the scene of occurrence along with their weapons in the tractor. The informant and his brother Mahinder Singh went to see the condition of Prabhu Dayal who had sustained injuries on his arms, legs, waist and head and bleeding profusely. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Adampur in a Mechanised Cart and first aid was given to him. During his examination by the medical officer he succumbed to his injuries at 5.50 p.m. and the hospital staff informed the nearby police station about his death. The Investigating Officer, Ronaski Ram, PW-8, recorded the statement of Satbir Singh, PW-3, and on that base registered an FIR No. 100/93 at 7.45 p.m. and the criminal law was set in motion.

3. In course of investigation, the investigating agency prepared the inquest report, got the post mortem conducted and collected the blood stained earth vide seizure memo Ext. PM. On 2.07.1993 the Investigating Officer arrested Man Singh, Radhey Shyam, Ram Kumar, Raja Ram and Om Prakash. All of them led to discovery of the weapons used in the alleged commission of crime. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was placed against the aforementioned accused persons.

4. The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication due to animosity. Be it noted, in course of trial after some evidence was recorded, the learned trial Judge, on the basis of an application preferred by the public prosecutor Under Section 319 of the Code summoned the other accused persons, namely, Bhal Singh, Mange Ram, Kirpa Ram, Het Ram and Prem Singh to face trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution, examined eight witnesses, namely, Dr. Pratap Singh, PW-1, Om Prakash, Patwari, PW-2, Satbir Singh, PW-3, Dr. P.L. Jindal, PW-4, Basant Kumar, PW-5, Ram Kumar, Asst. Sub Inspector, PW-6, Mahinder Singh, PW-7 and Ronaski Ram, Investigati





























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