1993 Supreme(Pat) 164

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.H.S.Abidi and Loknath Prasad JJ.
Gupteshwar Ram @ Gupteshwar
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 1989 ;
Decided On : APRIL 12, 1993

The common object of an unlawful assembly can be inferred from various factors, including the weapons used by the members of the assembly, the nature of the injuries caused to the victims, and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - COMMON OBJECT - INDIVIDUAL ACTS - SECTION 302/149, 326/149, 148, 147, 323, I.P.C. - SECTION 27 OF ARMS ACT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.

Fact of the Case:

Appellants were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act for their involvement in an unlawful assembly that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to several others. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with other accused, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the victims with weapons such as guns, garasas, lathis, and bhala. The appellants denied the charges and claimed that they were falsely implicated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause at least grievous hurt to the victims. The court also found that Gupteshwar Ram, one of the appellants, had individually fired a gun at the deceased, causing his death. However, the court held that the other appellants could not be held liable for the murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, as their individual acts did not bring them within the clutches of that provision.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly. 2. Whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause at least grievous hurt to the victims. 3. Whether Gupteshwar Ram individually fired a gun at the deceased, causing his death. 4. Whether the other appellants could be held liable for the murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly based on the following factors: - They came armed with lethal weapons in a block and remained till the finality. - They participated in the brickbatting. - Mahendra and Rajbali are said to have given lathi blows on the head and leg of Amir Ram whose injuries are made out by the evidence of the witnesses as well as the medical report. - When Rajnath was going to help his father, Gupteshwar fired at him. - Nand Kumar and Budhu Ram not use their garasa and bhala. 2. The court held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause at least grievous hurt to the victims based on the following factors: - By bringing the gun, garasa, bhala, and lathis the members of the unlawful assembly knew very well that grievous hurt was likely to be caused. - Lathi was first used. - Garasa and bhala were not used. - Gupteshwar used his gun. 3. The court held that Gupteshwar Ram individually fired a gun at the deceased, causing his death, based on the following evidence: - The medical evidence showed that the deceased died from a gunshot wound. - The eyewitnesses consistently deposed that Gupteshwar Ram fired the gun. 4. The court held that the other appellants could not be held liable for the murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC because: - Gupteshwar Rams firing was his individual act and so his conviction under Sec. 302, I.P.C. for his individual act makes him liable for conviction under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and his individual act does not bring the rest of the appellants within the clutches of Seetion 302 read with Sec. 149, I.P.C.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of Gupteshwar Ram under Section 302 IPC, Section 148 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and his sentences of rigorous imprisonment for life, two years, and two years, respectively. The court set aside the conviction of the other appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, but convicted each of them under Section 326/149 and sentenced them to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The court upheld the conviction of Budhu and Nand Kumar under Section 148 and their sentence of two year R.I., and those of Rajbali, Mahendra, and Tribhuwan under Section 147 and sentence of one year R.I., and further that of Mahendra under Section 323 and sentence of six months R.I. However, the court ordered that the sentences of the appellants run concurrently.