The court clarified that mere participation in an assault does not equate to intent to kill, necessitating clear evidence of a common object for murder to uphold convictions under Section 302.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

All the four appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Binod Kumar, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, the learned Advocates for the four appellants respectively. The State is represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutors.

3. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 147/149, 148/149, 341/149, 323/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No. 1, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 2019/ 45 of 2020. By order dated 22.03.2021, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 147 IPC; RI for two years under Section 148 IPC; RI for one year under Section 323/149 IPC; SI for one month under Section 341/149 IPC; RI for five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for three months under Section 307/149 IPC and RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer RI for three months under Section 302/149 IPC.

4. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

5. One Pramod Vishwakarma is alleged to have been killed at the hands of the appellants. Though in the FIR lodged by Prem Prakash Kumar, son of the deceased (PW-4), many other persons also have been named as participants in the crime, but it appears that investigation against others are still pending.

6. PW-4 had lodged the written report on 05.05.2019 alleging that sometimes prior to the occurrence, appellant/ Madheshwar Manjhi, Jagmohan Manjhi, Ranjeet Manjhi and appellant/ Sanjay Manjhi were assaulting a motorcyclist in front of his shop. PW-4 and his father intervened. The appellants and others got infuriated because of such intervention for an outsider. The enmity festered in their minds. Because of such act of PW-4 and his father, appellant/ Madheshwar Manjhi, Ranjeet Manjhi and appellant/ Sanjay Manjhi started abusing the family members of PW-4 on 04.05.2019 at about 8:00 PM. The deceased was not present at the house at that time as he had gone out for campaigning for a political party in the elections. In the meantime, it was alleged, Ranjeet Manjhi and Uma Mistry crossed over the boundary of the house of PW-4 and made some overtures towards outraging the modesty of a female family member, viz., Nagmani (not examined). When Nagmani shouted for help, the family members of PW-4 arrived and protested. In the meantime, Ranjeet Manjhi and Uma Mistry called their other associates. It was at that point of time that appellants/ Madheshwar Manjhi, Sanjay Manjhi, Madan Manjhi along with several others came to the house of PW-4. All of them were variously armed with lathi and iron-rod. As the fight escalated, appellant/ Anil Mistry caught the deceased and thereafter appellant/ Madheshwar Manjhi gave an iron rod blow on his head as a result of which the deceased got severely injured and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, it has been alleged that the accused persons including the appellants went on a rampage and assaulted the other members of the family, injuring seven of them. Out of those seven injured persons, three have been examined as PWs. 1, 2 and 6 at the trial. In the meantime, it has been alleged that the villagers arrived and seeing them, the accused persons took to their heels. The deceased and the injured persons were taken to the referral hospital, Makhdumpur where the deceased was declared dead whereas the other injured persons were afforded treatment. It was also stated in the written report that a land dispute existed between Anil Mistry and the deceased.

7. On the basis of the aforenoted written report, a case vide Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2019 dated 05.05.2019 was registered for investigation under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 342, 354, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 and