Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Suresh Dattu Bhojane & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.412 Of 2012
With
Satish Rama Bhojane – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 651 Of 2013
Decided On : 08-07-2024
Indian penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 – Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – Common object – Conviction and sentence – In view of testimony of eye-witnesses, courts below have rightly held that deceased was killed by accused persons on fateful day – Accused persons may not be armed and may not have been assigned any specific role but nonetheless their presence at scene of crime along with other accused persons is duly established – They were held to be part of unlawful assembly with common object – When charge is under Section 149 of IPC, presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly itself is sufficient for conviction – Assembly of all accused persons in house of accused with deadly weapons was apparently for the purposes of teaching a lesson to deceased and his brother to settle score arising from entrustment of country liquor shop – Minimum sentence for committing murder is life imprisonment and is not liable to be reduced – In the event appellant has already undergone sufficiently long incarceration and is eligible for remission, he may or as a matter of fact even others are at liberty to apply for remission for premature release in accordance with policy of State. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Under challenge in present criminal appeals is judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 of High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby it has dismissed criminal appeals of appellants confirming judgment and order of Trial Court dated 21.02.2002 convicting accused Nos. 1-6 including present appellants (A-3, A-5 & A-6) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC and at the same time acquitting A-7 and A-8.
Findings of Court:
In view of testimony of eye-witnesses and concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below about presence of A-5 and A-6 at scene of crime as part of unlawful assembly and their active role in surrounding deceased with common intention to kill him, they cannot escape conviction.
Result :Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. Counsel for the parties were heard.
2. Under challenge in the present criminal appeals is the judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 of High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby it has dismissed the criminal appeals of appellants confirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 21.02.2002 convicting accused Nos. 1-6 including the present appellants (i.e. A-3, A-5 & A-6) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC and at the same time acquitting A-7 and A-8.
3. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 21.02.2002 acquitted accused Nos. 7 & 8, convicted the remaining accused Nos. 1-6 and sentenced them for an offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC with rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, to suffer further imprisonment for period of 1 week.
4. There are two separate appeals arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 which have been clubbed together vide order of this Court dated 22.04.2013. Criminal Appeal No. 412/2012 has been filed by accused Nos. 5 & 6 and Criminal Appeal No. 651/2013 has been filed by accused No. 3. Therefore, in the present appeals, we are concerned only with conviction of accused No. 3 (Satish Rama Bhojane), accused No. 5 (Suresh Dattu Bhojane) and accused No. 6 (Anna @Anil Maruti Bhojane).
5. The allegations in the present appeals relate to a group assault conducted by all accused persons with deadly weapons which resulted in the death of one Mohan Mungase and injuries to his brother Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5) and one Maruti Nakate (PW-7).
6. The Trial Court records reveal that the prosecution case is, that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Mama Bhojane and his wife Chhaya (accused no. 8). Mama Bhojane was owner of one country liquor shop at village Borale. He had entrusted the country liquor shop to the accused No. 1. Later on, he entrusted the country liquor shop to deceased Mohan Mungase and his brother Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5) for the purpose of running it. Hence, accused No.1 got annoyed over such entrustment of the shop to deceased and his brother Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5).
7. On 06.02.1999 at about 7:00 pm, the deceased Mohan Mungase, his cousin Balu Mungase (PW-8), Anil Dhanve and Yuvraj Mungase were sitting at shop of Shiva Chougule situated at Village Borale. At that time accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 came there and abused the deceased Mohan Mungase and extended death threats. Thereafter, they went to the house of Mama Bhojane.
8. The deceased Mohan Mungase in order to apprise Mama Bhojane about the incident also went to his house along with Balu Mungase, Anil Dhanve and Yuvraj Mungase. When he entered the house, he found that Mama Bhojane was not there and instead his wife (A-8) was there along with all the accused.
9. At that time, a telephonic information was received by Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5) at his residence that his brother deceased Mohan Mungase has picked up some quarrel at the house of Mama Bhojane. On receiving the said information, Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5) arrived at the house of Mama Bhojane and he was followed by his sister Savita (PW-4). It is pertinent to note here that Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5) was married on 04.02.1999 i.e. 2 days earlier to the incident and, therefore, his sister had come to attend the marriage and was staying with them.
10. Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5), upon reaching the house of Mama Bhojane, saw his brother Mohan Mungase inside the house along with all the 8 accused persons. Accused Nos. 1-4 were armed with swords whereas accused No.7 had a scythe in his hand. The accused No. 8 had chilli powder. Accused Nos. 1-8 together had attacked Mohan Mungase by swords and when he tried to intervene, he too was assaulted with the swords but was intervened by her sister Savita (PW-4) and was rescued. At that very point of time, Maruti Nakate (PW-7) had also come to the house and was also assaulted.
11. In the meantime, Anil Dhanve who had accompan
Common object – When charge is under Section 149 of IPC, presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly itself is sufficient for conviction.
Membership in an unlawful assembly incurs liability for crimes committed in furtherance of a common object, regardless of specific overt acts attributed to each member.
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
An assembly of individuals does not constitute an unlawful assembly absent a common objective and overt acts; intent and premeditation are requisite for homicide convictions.
Murder and rioting – Sans unlawful assembly case of each accused has to be considered according to his individual act.
Murder – Once common object of unlawful assembly stands established, every member thereof becomes vicariously liable for acts committed in prosecution of such common object.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
