Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 465
Patna High Court
I.A. ANSARI and VIKASH JAIN, JJ.
(7.5.2014)
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1084 with 1087 of 2013 and 40 of 2014
Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27th November, 2013 and the order of sentence, dated 30th November, 2013 passed by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge V, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 2003/21 of 2012, Arising out of Muffasil Police Station Case No. 100 of 2002
Munni Noniya & Ors. (in 1084)
Deo Nandan Noniya : Appellants
& Anr. (in 1087)
Bhola Paswan (in 40)
Vs.
The State of Bihar : Respondent
(in all)
For the Appellants : M/s Sanjay Kumar, Madhusudan Kumar, Birendra Kumar, Vinod Kumar.
For the State : M/s Ashwini Kumar Sinha, S.C. Mishra.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860–Section 302/149–Murder committed in prosecution of a common object of an unlawful assembly–Section 149 IPC shows that the offence, which is committed in prosecution of a common object of an un-lawful assembly, need not necessarily fall within the common object with which the unlawful assembly was formed–This apart, Section 149 IPC also makes a person liable for the offence committed by an unlawful assembly, which he was a member of, if he knew such offence to be likely 'to be committed' in prosecution of the common object, meaning thereby that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, a member of the assembly would still be vicariously liable for the offence committed if he knew that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, which he was a member of–In the present cases every member of the unlawful assembly know that murder was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object with which the assembly was formed and, in such circumstances, when murder has been committed, every member of the unlawful assembly would be vicariously liable for the offence so committed–Conviction and sentences upheld–Appeals dismissed. (Paras 45 & 73)
(2004)4 SCC 205, AIR 1989 SC 1456, AIR 1965 SC 202, (2009) 16 SCC 337, (2011)4 SCC 677–Referred.
I. A. ANSARI, J.:–Under challenge, in the present appeals, is the judgment, dated 27.11.2013, of conviction, in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 2003/21 of 2012, by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge V, Gaya, and the order, dated 30.11.2013, whereby various sentences have been passed against the accused-appellants.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has convicted all the accused-appellants, except accused-appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For their conviction, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, all the accused-appellants, except Deo Nandan Noniya, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for two months. For his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under:—
(i) Deceased Butai Noniya was the husband of Rukmani Devi (PW 1). While Rukmani Noniya (PW 1) used to work in a brick-kiln, her husband, Butai Noniya, used to work outside their village because they have no cultivable land. Both of them used to reside in a one room house.
(ii) On 18.07.2002, at about 9:00 PM, accused Bhola Paswan, Ayodhya Noniya, Sarju Noniya, Deo Nandan Noniya, Ram Chandar Noniya, Dasai Noniya, Nanhe Noniya, Munni Noniya and Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya, entered into the house of Butai Noniya and began to drag his wife, Rukmani Devi (PW 1), outside her house. As she began to shout, her husband, Butai Noniya, came forward to rescue her. At that moment, on being exhorted by accused Sarju Noniya, accused Deo Nandan Noniya fired from his fire-arm. Having sustained a bullet injury on his abdominal region, Butai Noniya fell down on the ground and died at the spot. Thereafter, the other associates of accused Deo Nandan Noniya began assaulting others, who had assembled at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla raised from the house of the said deceased. Amongst the people, who had so come, was present Butai Noniya’s brother, Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2).
(iii) From the place of occurrence, Butai Noniya was carried to a hospital called ‘Pilgrim Hospital’, where the doctor declared him dead.
(iv) On receiving the information about the occurrence, police arrived at the place of occurrence, on 18.07.2002, at about 11:15 PM, and recorded the information given by Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2), about the occurrence, in the form of fardbayan.
(v) Treating the said fardbayan (Exhibit-1) as First Information Report, Mufassil Police Station Case No. 100 of 2002 was registered under Sections 147/148/ 149/458/341/342/114/323/324/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against all the nine accused persons, namely, (i) Bhola Paswan, (ii) Ayodhya Noniya, (iii) Sarju Noniya, (iv) Deo Nandan Noniya, (v) Ram Chandar Noniya, (vi) Dasai Noniya, (vii) Nanhe Noniya, (viii) Munni Noniya and (ix) Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya.
(vi) During investigation, inquest was held over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination, and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused persons, namely, (i) Bhola Paswan, (ii) Ayodhya Noniya, (iii) Sarju Noniya, (iv) Deo Nandan Noniya, (v) Ram Chandar Noniya, (vi) Dasai Noniya, (vii) Nanhe Noniya, (viii) Munni Noniya and (ix) Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya, under Sections 147/148/149/458/341/342/114/323/ 324/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. At the stage of framing of charges, accused Ayodhya Noniya abscon
