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

2019 Supreme(SC) 825

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Dev Karan @ Lambu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2010 with Crl.A.No.300 of 2010, Crl.A.No.302 of 2010, Crl.A.No.1139 of 2010
Decided On : 06-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the parties:- Mr. A. Karthik, Adv. Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Adv. Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Badusha Sulaiman, Adv. Mr. Vishnu P., Adv. Ms. Hiral Gupta, Adv. Mr. Akshay N., Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR Mr. Mohit K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Vibhuti Sushant, Adv. Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
For application of section 149 IPC clear finding as to nature of common object of the assembly and unlawfulness of the object and the assembly must be recorded.
Sections 141 only defines unlawful assembly. Non-inclusion of section 141 in charges will not render the trial illegal.
Two courts below returning concurrent findings - Supreme Court shall not act as third Court of appeal.
When the courts below return concurrent findings, Supreme Court shall not act as third Court of appeal.
Minor discrepancies in evidence are not fatal to prosecution story.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 141, 143 and 149 - Vicarious liability - For application of section 149 there must be an unlawful assembly - Clear finding as to nature of common object of the assembly and unlawfulness of the object must be recorded. (Para 20)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 141 - Provision only defines unlawful assembly - Effects and implications are provided in subsequent provisions - Held, non-inclusion of section 141 in charges will not render the trial illegal. (Para 21,

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 149 - Seven accused armed with deadly weapons coming to site of incident - All of them giving blows to deceased with their arms - At least 24 injuries inflicted on the deceased - Others also not spared - No question of mistaken identity and no delay in filing FIR - Conviction justified. (Para 22)

       (d) Criminal trial - Non examination of witnesses witnessing earlier altercation - Held, in view of injuries on the deceased as well as complainant and others, such non-examination is immaterial. (Para 24)

       (e) Criminal Appeal - Two courts below returning concurrent findings - Supreme Court shall not act as third Court of appeal. (Para 25)

       (f) Criminal trial - Sentencing - Appellants convicted under section 302/149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - in view of the common object and nature of injuries cannot be converted into section 304 Part II just because they have served a period of nine and a half years. (Para 26)

       (g) Criminal trial - Minor discrepancies in evidence - Not fatal to prosecution story. (Para 30)

       

       Facts of the case:

       Seven accused were tried for assault and murder of the deceased. One of the accused died. The remaining arrested accused were found guilty and convicted under Sections 148, 302, 307, 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 449 of the IPC. All the accused were sentenced for life, with fine of Rs.500 each under Section 302 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for seven years each along with a fine of Rs.500 each under Section 307 of the IPC with similar sentence under Section 149 of the IPC. The accused were also directed to undergo RI for three years each with a fine of Rs.200 each under Section 325 of the IPC, and under Section 148 of the IPC, they were sentenced to RI for 2 years each with fine of Rs.200 each. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. All the accused were held guilty under Section 149 of the IPC as they constituted an unlawful assembly, as a result of which, it was opined that specific attribution of injuries caused by each individual was not required to be considered.

       The High Court dismissed the appeals

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellant has been rightly convicted.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. On the fateful date of 28.7.1994 at 3 a.m., Jaibir @ Gabbu (for short ‘deceased’) was murdered. An FIR was registered on the same date by one Surender (PW-7). The prelude culminating in the incident has been set out in the FIR.

2. The residential house of the deceased was under-construction, at Modawala Bagh in Bhiwani. A group of friends – Surender (PW-7), the deceased, Ajay Bhan (PW-8), another Surender S/o Rajender Singh (not examined), Sandeep (not examined) and Narender (not examined) were sitting and consuming liquor in one of the rooms of the under construction house. It appears that the liquor possibly fell short, as the deceased asked Sandeep to bring half a bottle of liquor from the English vend. After some time, the remaining friends who were in the room heard raised voices of Sandeep. In order to enquire as to what was transpiring, Surender (PW-7/complainant), the deceased and Narender went towards the liquor shop. In the proximity of the liquor shop, near the tea shop of Naresh Kumar, these three persons saw accused Krishan and Vidhya Rattan (original accused No.3/appellant [Appellant in Crl.Appeal No.300/2010]) abusing and quarrelling with Sandeep. Heated words were exchanged and threats were held out. The deceased asked Krishan and Vidhya Rattan to come during the day to discuss the matter with the complainant and his friends. The complainant, the deceased, Narendar and Sandeep thereafter came back to the under-construction, residential house.

3. It is the case of the complainant that just as these friends were, once again, in the process of resuming their drink, seven persons (all arrayed as accused before the trial court) entered the under-construction house of the deceased, armed with deadly weapons like wooden rafter, lathis and sword. Rajesh Yadav (accused No.1), who has since passed away, was armed with a bahi (a rectangular wooden rafter, which is used in making cots), and proclaimed that the deceased, referred to as the ‘leader’, be killed, and then he hit the deceased on the head with the wooden rafter. A lathi blow was given by Krishan on the head of the deceased. The consequence of these blows was that the deceased fell to the ground. The assault continued when Suresh (original accused No.5/appellant [Appellant in Crl. Appeal No.302/2010]) also gave a wooden rafter blow on the left leg of the deceased. Rajesh Yadav (accused No.1), since deceased, raised a lalkara that Jaibir (the deceased) be killed altogether. All the accused thereafter started hitting the deceased indiscriminately with their respective weapons. A variety of weapons were used to carry out the assault, with Rajesh Yadav and Suresh being armed with bahis, while Rajesh Jogi (original accused No.4/appellant[Appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1139/2010]) being armed with kirpan (sword) and the remaining four accused carrying lathis.

4. The endeavour of the complainant to intervene, only ended up in blows being received by him from different accused, and the same was the consequence for Ajay Bhan (PW-8), on his endeavour to intervene, too. All the accused persons are stated to have run away from the place of occurrence of the event, once the remaining companions of deceased herein raised an alarm. The deceased succumbed to his injuries, though was taken for treatment to the General Hospital, Bhiwani. The examination of PW-8 and PW-7 resulted in the doctor opining that PW-8 had multiple lacerated wounds on the scalp, and that his right forearm bones, left forearm bones and right foot were fractured. After giving necessary medical treatment, he was referred to the Medical College, Rohtak on the same day. Surender (PW-7/complainant) was found with a surgical emphysema[A condition in which the air sacs of the lungs are damaged and enlarged, causing breathlessness.] on the right side, which was the reason for his reference to the Medical College, Rohtak. The ruqa was sent to the Police Station, Bhiwani at 4:15 a.m. by t















































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