2021 Supreme(Pat) 828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A.M. BADAR, SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR, JJ.
Rama Chaudhary – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.336, 353 of 1995
Decided on : 09-12-2021

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Section 149 IPC does not create separate offence – It creates constructive or vicarious liability for acts done in prosecution of common object of that assembly, by all members of unlawful assembly – Section 149 IPC makes every member of an unlawful assembly at the time of committing of offence, guilty of that offence on establishing the criteria – If such conditions are fulfilled, then if not open to court to see as to who actually did offensive act – Court is required to determine the issue in every case before it as to 'whether offence was committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object or whether an offence was such as members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed – 'Accused should not, merely by reason of his association with other members of an unlawful assembly be held vicariously liable for each and every offence committed by his associates, which he himself neither intended nor knew to be likely to be committed – Members of an unlawful assembly may have committing of object only upto a certain point – Beyond that point they may differ in their objects – In such fact situation, knowledge possessed by each member as to what offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object shall also vary – Whether a member of an unlawful assembly was aware as regards likelihood of commission of another offence or not would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case such as background of incident, motive, nature of assembly, nature of arms carried by members of assembly, their common object and behaviour of members soon before, at and after commission of crime etc. – Mere possibility of commission of offence would not necessarily enable court to draw an inference that likelihood of commission of such offence was within knowledge of every member of an unlawful assembly – Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and accused was actuated by that common object – Word object means purpose or design – In order to make it common it must be shared by all – It does not require a prior concert and common meeting of minds before attack. (Paras 17 and 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 and 147 – Murder – Common object – Conviction and sentence – Injured witnesses are stamped witnesses whose presence on scene of occurrence cannot be disputed, if it is established that they have suffered injuries in incident in question – As son of injured witnesses died in incident in question, their evidence will have to be examined carefully, particularly in light of fact that out of all nine accused persons who were put up for trial, two of them came to be acquitted by trial court – Incident took place thereafter suddenly – Accused persons were not armed with dangerous weapons – Manner in which incident took place, dispute due to which incident took place, nature of weapons used by accused persons so also their behaviour soon before, at and after commission of crime makes it clear that they were not having any common object of commission of the crime – Conviction and sentence modified. (Paras 11, 17, 19, 24 and 25)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Murder is a gravest form of culpable homicide, which has its peculiar characteristic required to be proved before a person is to be held guilty for committing murder as defined under Section 300 of IPC – It requires judicial scrutiny of prevailing facts – Mere fact that death of human being is caused is not enough to constitute offence of murder – Unless one of mental status mentioned in ingredient of Section 300 is present, act causing death cannot amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder – It must be proved that there was intention to inflict particular bodily injury actually found to be present – Intention of person causing injury has to gathered from careful examination of facts and circumstances of each case – Intention to cause requisite type of injury is a subjective inquiry and then there would be further inquiry whether injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death is of objective nature. (Para 21)