Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, (BENCH AT AURANGABAD)
S.G. MEHARE, J.
Kondiba, s/o. Bali Gawali - Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Shrigonda Police Station, Ahmednagar - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No.272 Of 2016
Decided On : 24-10-2024
For the Applicants : Mr. Shrikant T. Veer, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. A. A. Khan, A.P.P.
Members of an unlawful assembly can be held vicariously liable for crimes committed in furtherance of a common object, even if they did not directly inflict harm.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, and 149 - Conviction of accused for assault and unlawful assembly - The courts upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimony despite challenges regarding weapon recovery and witness credibility. (Paras 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 25)
(B) Criminal Liability - Vicarious liability under Section 149 - Members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for the actions of others if they share a common object. (Paras 11, 12, 14)
(C) Sentencing Policy - The court emphasized the need for proportionality in sentencing, considering the nature of the crime and public safety. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged their conviction for assaulting the informant and his family over a land dispute, resulting in serious injuries. The informant's brother and sister-in-law were also injured during the incident.
Findings of Court:
The courts found sufficient evidence to uphold the convictions, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness accounts.
Issues: The main issues included the guilt of accused No.5 under Section 149, the admissibility of evidence from hostile witnesses, and the appropriateness of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere presence in an unlawful assembly can lead to liability under Section 149, and the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(S.G. Mehare, J.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent.
2. The applicants have impugned the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrigonda (Court No.2) passed in Regular Criminal Case No.237 of 1998, dated 13.05.2015, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) and the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015, dated 06.12.2016, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrigonda.
3. Accused No.1 to 5 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, and 326 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.
4. The prosecution case in brief was, that the informant was the resident of village Shedgaon, Taluka Shrigonda. He has two brothers. One of them was accused No.1 and another was Vitthal. Their father expired in 1973. He was cultivating ancestral joint family property Block No.44, after the demise of the father it was recorded in the name of accused No.1. The informant with his brothers orally partitioned their lands and they were cultivating separately. In spite of the partition, accused No.1 entered his name in the cultivation column of Block No.44. then the first informant and his brother entered their names in the revenue record. Therefore, the accused No.1 challenged that order before the Collector. The Collector directed them to file a civil suit. Their suit was pending before the Civil Court.
5. On 13.08.1998, when the informant’s brother Vitthal and his wife were harvesting the groundnuts, the accused No.1 saw them from some distance. Therefore, he called the first informant. When the first informant and his other brother were talking, all the accused came there armed with iron bar, axe and sticks. Accused No.1 was holding a stick. Accused No.3 and 4 were holding axes and accused No.2 was holding a iron bar. Accused No.1 gave a stick blow on his thigh. Accused No.3 started inflicting axe blows on his brother. They beat the first informant and his brother one by one. Their wives came there to rescue them. However, the accused also beat them. The informant has suffered a head injury and on the thigh. His brother had a head injury. The hands of his sister-in-law were fractured. On the basis of the report, all accused were tried for the above offences. On appreciating the evidence, both Courts convicted them as mentioned above.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that the stick recovered from accused No.1 was not bloodstained. The recovery of the axe from the accused No.2 and 3 was not proved. Only the Investigating Officer led the evidence. No role was attributed to accused No.5. One of the witnesses admitted in her evidence that the alleged weapons were not used. Therefore, there was no identification of alleged weapons. However, both Courts erroneously believed in the recovery of weapons. The witnesses were not able to state the number of blows and overact of each accused. The brother of the first informant did not state the exact date of the incident. Even then, the Court believed them. Both Courts erred in holding that the discrepancies mentioned above were minor; therefore, witnesses cannot be disbelieved, if it is otherwise not trustworthy. He also argued that both Courts did not consider the non-examination of one of the injured. Hiding such a material witness raises serious doubt and the other evidence was damaged. He further argued that the recovery panchas were hostile. Accused No.3 and 4 went to the Police Station with weapons was not a ground to believe the prosecution case. The prosecution has to establish its case independently. Both Courts did not believe that the injuries may be self inflicted. The ove
