The prosecution must prove mens rea and establish a common object for conviction under Section 149 IPC; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellants herein have taken exception to judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 passed by learned I^st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.148 of 2002, holding appellants guilty for offence punishable under sections 147, 304-A r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them for imprisonment as well as fine.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Conspectus of prosecution case in brief is that, on 16.05.2001, daughter of informant had visited her father, requesting to carry presents for her husband and her brother-in-law on account of marriage of her brother-in-law. Accused Francis father-in-law of Martina also reached there and started abusing, thereby questioning why she came there. That time, another daughter of informant namely Alpha, who was pregnant had also come there. Previously, Alpha had lodged report against her husband and in-laws for commission of offence under section 498-A IPC. In all 21 accused came there and there was beating to both informant Peter as well as Alpha. They both were taken to Government hospital. On 17.05.2001, informant Peter lodged report against accused resulting into registration of crime bearing No. 51 of 2001.

3. On completion of investigation accused persons were charge-sheeted and tried before learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who, on appreciating oral and documentary evidence, held charges against present appellants proved, recording guilt for above offences.

Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has been preferred on various grounds mentioned in the appeal memo.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellants :

4. Learned counsel for appellants criticized the judgment on the ground that, there is improper appreciation. According to him, 21 persons were named, but their roles are not defined and only accused nos.1, 2, 5, 15, 17 and 21 are picked up and chosen and held guilty. Learned counsel took this court through the evidence of informant, his daughter Alpha (PW4) and would submit that, their testimonies are rendered doubtful in view of answers given by them in cross examination. Learned counsel also took this court through the medical evidence and pointed out that alleged occurrence is of16.05.2001, but doctor has not specifically attributed abortion due to alleged beating on such date, rather he pointed out that abortion is of 29.05.2001 and as such there is no nexus with the occurrence and charge under section 304-A IPC. He submitted that spot is not proved. That, independent witnesses have exaggerated the version and therefore, it is his submission that, learned trial court ought not to have straightaway accepted prosecution version as proved.

5. In the alternative, it is his submission that, even otherwise matter was between two families, who are related. That, due to matrimonial disputes, relations were strained, but subsequent to FIR, matter has been amicably settled between the parties. That, informant as well as his daughter, who is said to be victim, who have also deposed in the very examination-in-chief to that extent and so learned counsel seeks matter to be compounded as now harmonious relations between parties are said to be restored.

In support of such contentions, he seeks reliance on the rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 and Jalaluddin v. State of U.P., 2001 AIR SCW 2266.

On behalf of Respondent – State :

6. Learned APP opposed on the ground that there is convincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence of informant, who himself was injured. That, there is corroboration from another victim daughter (PW4). That, medical evidence supports ocular and injured account. That, there is evidence of independent witnesses and therefore, according to learned APP, there is no infirmity in the findings and conclusion recorded by learned trial Judge. He suggested that, matter being non compoundable, parties offerings in appeal for compounding the offe