Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Khatim Reza, JJ.
Satay Narayan Yadav Son of Millu Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.416, 422, 431, 443 of 2015
Decided On : 18-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – It is an inference to be deduced from facts and circumstances of each case – An assembly, which might not be unlawful, when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly – Whether members of unlawful assembly really had a common object to cause murder of deceased has to be decided in facts and circumstances of each case, nature of weapons used by such members, manner and sequence of attack made by those members on deceased and circumstances under which occurrence took place – Every member of an assembly renders himself liable for criminal act or acts of any other member or members of that assembly provided the same is/are done in prosecution of common object or is/are such as every member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. (Paras 36 and 37)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 and 148 – Murder and rioting – Life sentence – Deceased was brutally assaulted by appellants with use of various weapons – Joint act of appellants fall under Section 300 of IPC punishable under Section 302 of IPC and not under Section 304 (Part-II) – It is not an individual act of one of appellants which led to death of deceased, rather it was committed by all of them with a common object – Once Court reaches conclusion that ingredients of Section 149 of IPC are fulfilled, every person, who, at the time of committing offence, was a member of assembly, has to be held guilty of offence – Conviction of appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC does not require any interference by this Court – Appellants were armed with deadly weapons and being member of an unlawful assembly used force, their conviction under Section 148 of IPC by trial court is also justified – Conviction and sentence partly affirmed. (Paras 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 38, 41 to 45)
JUDGMENT :
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
A judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2015 and the consequent order of sentence dated 28.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kaimur, Bhabhua, in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2012 (CIS No. 2603 of 2014), arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 48 of 2012, are under challenge in all these four appeals, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present judgment and order.
2. There are altogether 14 appellants in these appeals, who have been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appellants Ram Gahan Yadav (appellant No. 1 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 422 of 2015), Murahu Yadav (appellant No. 5 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 431 of 2015), Ramji Yadav (appellant No. 5 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 422 of 2015) and Devendra Yadav @ Pintu Yadav (appellant No. 2 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 416 of 2015) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC also. After recording their conviction, learned trial court has imposed following sentences: -
| Appellant Number | Conviction under Section | Sentence | |||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | |||
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 416 of 2015 | |||||
| Satay Narayan Yadav (Appellant No. 1) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For Life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| Devendra Yadav @Pintu Yadav (Appellant No. 2) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 10,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
|
| 148 of the Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 3 years | 20,000/- | R.I. for 6 months | |
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 422 of 2015 | |||||
| Ram Gahan Yadav (Appellant No. 1) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| 148 of the Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 3 years | 20,000/- | R.I. for 6 months | ||
| Shyam Narayan Yadav (Appellant No. 2) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| Hoshila Yadav (Appellant No. 3) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| Vakil Yadav (Appellant No. 4) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| Ramji Yadav (Appellant No. 5) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| 148 of the Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 3 years | 20,000/- | R.I. for 6 months | ||
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 431 of 2015 | |||||
| Bal Kishun Yadav (Appellant No. 1) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For Life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigorous imprisonment in addition there too. | |
| Sunnar Yadav (Appellant No.2) | 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code | For Life | 50,000/- | The sentence of life will not be less than 20 years of imprisonment and he will have to serve 5 years of rigoro | |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the constitution of an unlawful assembly and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 149 of IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the common object of the accused in a fatal assault.
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of members of an unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, particularly the application of Sections 141, 143, 144, 146, and 149 ....
Section 141 of IPC states that an “unlawful assembly” is an assembly of five or more persons, if their common object is to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence.
The prosecution must prove the formation of an unlawful assembly and the shared common object beyond reasonable doubt, and essential witnesses must be produced to unfold the narrative.
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly – Common object - No doubt section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object various circu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
