2019 Supreme(SC) 1397

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Appellants
Versus
Ravindra @ Babloo And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s).1887 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 5666 of 2017)
Decided on : 18-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly.
(2) In a case of a mob assault, especially when there is no doubt with regard to ocular evidence, to look for corroboration of each injury by correlating it with evidence of a prosecution witness to a particular accused and then to discredit prosecution case on that basis cannot be upheld.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147, 148 and 452 – Murder, attempt to murder and house trespass – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – Respondents fully armed, entered house of deceased and when latter ran out for his safety, he was chased and assaulted – One of respondents fired at deceased who fell down, after which others assaulted – Accused who were all well armed constituted an unlawful assembly – Common object of assembly and that it was shared by all of them with awareness is also evident from their conduct in having chased and assaulted deceased – In a case of a mob assault, especially when there is no doubt with regard to ocular evidence, to look for corroboration of each injury by correlating it with evidence of a prosecution witness to a particular accused and then to discredit prosecution case on that basis cannot be upheld and is contrary to principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding common object and necessary ingredients for the same – In nature and number of injuries, assailants may well have been five in number – Likewise, fact that there may not be any firearm injury on deceased is considered irrelevant for fixing vicarious liability as member of an unlawful assembly once presence of accused possessed of a weapon of assault chasing deceased along with others stands established by reliable ocular evidence – There is no such gross variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence so as to discredit an injured witness and an eye witness to order acquittal – Order of acquittal of respondents set aside. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 141 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Determinative factor is assembly consisting of five or more persons fully armed and who entertained one or more of common objects, as specified in Section 141 – It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly – Respondents well understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within purview of Section 141, IPC – Word “object” means purpose or design and in order to make it common, it must be shared by all. (Para 10)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 141 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Common object” of an assembly is to be ascertained from acts and language of members comprising it, and from a consideration of all surrounding circumstances – It may be gathered from course of conduct adopted by members of assembly – What common object of unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view nature of assembly, arms carried by members and behaviour of members at or near scene of incident – Sharing of common object is a mental attitude which is to be gathered from act of a person and result thereof – It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, same must be translated into action or be successful. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:

State as appellant assails acquittal of three respondents by High Court, reversing their conviction under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147, 148 and 452 of Indian Penal Code ordered by Trial Court.

Findings of Court:

It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The respondents well understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141, IPC. The word “object” means the purpose or design and, in order to make it “common”, it must be shared by all.

Result : Appeal allowed.