Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.K. Tahilramani, Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ.
Sujit Haribhau Patil & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 667, 668, 1330, 1141 of 2013 & 82 of 2014
Decided On : 25-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Shashank Manohar i/b. Mr. Nitin Sejpal, Mrs. Pooja Sejpal, Mr. Shirish Gupte, Mr. Sandeep Shinde
For the State : Mr. S.K. Shinde
The accused could not be held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 149 IPC as the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a common object amongst the accused persons to attract the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC.
Headnote:
The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 504, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused appealed against their conviction and sentence. The court held that the accused could not be held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 149 IPC as the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a common object amongst the accused persons to attract the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC. The court also held that the accused could only be held responsible for their individual acts and convicted the accused No. 1 for the offence under section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The court acquitted the other accused of all the offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 504, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused appealed against their conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the accused could not be held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 149 IPC as the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a common object amongst the accused persons to attract the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC. The court also held that the accused could only be held responsible for their individual acts and convicted the accused No. 1 for the offence under section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The court acquitted the other accused of all the offences.
Issues: Whether the accused could be held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 149 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused could not be held guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 149 IPC as the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a common object amongst the accused persons to attract the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC. The court also held that the accused could only be held responsible for their individual acts and convicted the accused No. 1 for the offence under section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The court acquitted the other accused of all the offences.
Final Decision: The court convicted the accused No. 1 for the offence under section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The court acquitted the other accused of all the offences.
Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, District Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2009. The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 504, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Judge has held the accused nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 guilty of offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months in respect of offence under Section 143 IPC, imprisonment for one year each in respect of offence under Section 144, 147 and 148 of IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, i.d. one year imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. The accused no. 7 is also held guilty of offence under Section 307 r/w. 149 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
3. The accused nos. 1, 6, 8 and 10 have challenged their conviction and sentence in criminal appeal No. 667 of 2013 whereas accused nos. 2, 5 and 7 have challenged the conviction and sentence by filing criminal appeal no. 668 of 2013.
4. The learned Judge has held accused nos. 3, 4, 11 and 12 guilty of offence under Section 324 of the IPC and has released them on executing a bond of good behaviour for a period of three years with surety of Rs. 15,000/- each.
5. The State has filed an appeal being Appeal No. 82 of 2014 for enhancement of sentence imposed against accused nos. 3, 4, 11 and 12.
6. The learned Judge has acquitted accused nos. 9 of all the offences and the other accused are acquitted of the offences under Sections 325 and 326 r/w. 149 and 504 of IPC and 37(1)(3)(135) of the Bombay Police Act.
7. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2013 and the first informant Deepak Patil has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 2013 challenging the acquittal of the accused in respect of the offences other than those for which they have been acquitted.
8. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 5.7.2009 at about 11.30 a.m the complainant Deepak Patil and his brothers Anil Patil and Manohar Patil were returning to village Patnoli from Panvel by their Safari Vehicle No. MH 43 V 1700. When they reached near the school ground at Patnoli, they saw Haribhau (A- 5), Tukaram (A-6), Kashinath (A-8) and Shravan (A-9) sitting by the side of the road. Their children and some other boys from the village were playing cricket on the ground. It is alleged that on seeing the complainant, Sujit (accused no. 1) spat and abused him. The complainant got down from the vehicle and questioned the accused no. 1, at which time the other accused who were sitting by the side of the road rushed towards the complainant and his brothers. They were also joined by others who had come to the spot armed with weapons such as sticks, iron rod, bat, hockey sticks, sword etc. On seeing this, the brothers of the complainant Prakash, Kishore, Deepak and Pravin the brothers of the complainant Vilas also came to the place of the incident. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 gave a blow of sword on the head of Anil (the deceased) while the other accused gave blows by hockey sticks, rod etc on his head. The accused also assaulted the complainant-Deepak and his brothers and thereafter fled away from the place of the incident. Mahadeo Patil took the injured to Gandhi hospital. They were examined by PW28 Dr. Bhushan Jain. The witnesses had sustained following injuries:
1. Deepak Parshuram Patil
(1) Monteggia Fracture dislocation left forearm
(2) Fracture distal phalnyx right thumb
(3) CLW over left frontal area of size 2 x 05. x 0.5 cm
(4) CLW over left parietal area, having size 5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms
(5) CLW on mid parietal having size 5 x 1 x 1 cm
(6) Contusion of right forearm having size 6 x 4 cm
(7) Contusi
