2018 Supreme(SC) 484

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Others – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1525 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1526-1527 OF 2009
Decided On : 16-05-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Ingredients of section 149 IPC discussed and applied. Unlawful assembly and common object.
‘Issues’ and ‘charges’ – distinction.
Accused is entitled only to reasonable doubt, not every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. There is need to curb unmerited acquittals.
Cases of unmerited acquittals should not be reopened after long lapse of time. Instead the victims should be compensated.
Insufficiency of investigation; interference in investigation; inefficient prosecution are reasons for ineffective enforcement of criminal law.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Provision declares vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly – It also makes members of the unlawful assembly vicariously liable for such offences as the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. (Para 14)

       AIR 1960 SC 725 – Relied upon

       (1970) 3 SCC 46; (1989) 1 SCC 437 – Referred

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 211 and 213 – Framing of charge – Three persons died – 17 accused arrayed – Charge u/s 302 must have been framed on three counts against specifically named accused with respect to each of the deceased – Distinct charges should have been framed specifying which of the accused are charged for causing the death of which one of the three different deceased – Charges should also have been proved clearly u/s 302 with or without help of section 149 – A person cannot be charged u/s 147 and 148 both – However, defective framing of charge would not render conviction invalid. (Para 16, 18)

       (2004) 11 SCC 585; (2004) 5 SCC 334 – Relied upon

       © Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Vicarious liability – Members of unlawful assembly – Mere presence attracts liability – Common object – Section 141 and 143 – For attracting section 146 members of unlawful assembly need not be armed but section 148 would be attracted only kid members are armed – While Sections 141, 146 and 148 create distinct offences. Section 149 only creates a vicarious liability – Fundamental requirement – Existence of an unlawful assembly as defined u/s 141 made punishable u/s 143 – Common object – Normally to be gathered from the circumstances. (Para 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30)

       (2004) 4 SCC 557; AIR 1969 SC 689; (1972) 3 SCC 639; (2013) 7 SCC 629; AIR 1953 SC 364; AIR 1960 SC 725; AIR 1965 SC 202 – Relied upon

       AIR 1955 All 232 (FB); (1894) ILR 22 Cal 276; AIR 1916 Mad 788 – Cited with approval

       (d) Words and phrases – Issues and charges – Distinction – Not the same – Issues are not framed prior to commencement of trial – They are identified at the time of writing judgment. (Para 33)

       (e) Criminal trial – Evidence – Sessions court marking evidence in case no. 118/1992 as evidence in case no.58/98 – Not permissible – Entire trial in case no. 58/98 held vitiated – Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 41)

       (f) Criminal trial – Standard of evidence – Beyond reasonable doubt – Should not be stretched to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt – Accused entitled only to reasonable doubt – Need to curb unmerited acquittals. (Para 42)

       (1973) 2 SCC 793 – Relied upon

       (g) Criminal trial – 13 accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt – Incident 25 years old – No purpose would be served by setting aside acquittals and remanding the case – witnesses would not be available and even if available reliability of their evidence at this remote time would not be reliable – Held, victims should be adequately compensated, (Para 44)

       (1993) 2 SCC 746 – Relied upon

       (h) Criminal justice delivery system – Ineffective enforcement of criminal law – Reasons – Insufficiency of investigation; interference in investigation; inefficient prosecution. (Para 45)

       

       Facts of the case:

       17 persons were made accused in connection with death of three persons and injuries to 5 persons.

       A-1, A-5, A-10 and A-12 were convicted u/s 302, 326 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135(1) of the B.P. Act. All other accused were acquitted.

       The appeal of A-10 and A-12 was dismissed and the appeal of accused nos.1 and 5 was partly allowed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There are procedural inappropriateness and acquittals are unmerited. Victims compensated.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.