Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBI PROSAD DEY, J.
Shri Sanjeev Kishor - Appellant
Vs.
The State - Respondent
CRA No. 006 of 2015
Decided on : 18-01-2016
RIOTING - SECTION 147 IPC - INGREDIENTS - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - COMMON OBJECT - VIOLENCE - KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELIHOOD OF OFFENCE - ABSENCE OF COMMON OBJECT - SUDDEN QUARREL - INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY - FAILURE OF PROSECUTION TO PROVE PARTICIPATION - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code for rioting. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his associates were part of an unlawful assembly that engaged in a fight with another group of students. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that he was not named in the FIR, was not identified by any witnesses, and did not participate in the fight.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's participation in the rioting. The witnesses could not identify the appellant as a member of the unlawful assembly, and there was no evidence of a common object among the members of the assembly. The court also noted that the fight was a sudden quarrel, and that each of the accused should be held liable for their own acts, rather than being held vicariously liable for the acts of others.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly. 2. Whether there was a common object among the members of the assembly. 3. Whether the appellant participated in the fight.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly. The witnesses could not identify the appellant as a member of the assembly, and there was no evidence of a common object among the members of the assembly. 2. The court held that there was no common object among the members of the assembly. The fight was a sudden quarrel, and there was no evidence that the members of the assembly had a common purpose or goal. 3. The court held that the appellant did not participate in the fight. The witnesses could not identify the appellant as a participant in the fight, and there was no evidence that the appellant committed any acts of violence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellant's conviction under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of the charge.
DEBI PROSAD DEY, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair dated 10/11.03.2015 whereby and where under learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under section 147 of IPC and thereafter sentenced the appellant to suffer simple imprisonment of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default for simple imprisonment of three months.
2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The specific challenge to such judgment of conviction and sentence is that learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the witnesses did not corroborate each other in material particulars and thereby prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellant. The appellant has further challenged such order of conviction on the ground that learned Sessions Judge did not discuss the evidences on record in it's true perspective and thereby came to an erroneous decision in the case under reference.
3. It is necessary to discuss the entire gamut of the case taking into account the evidences on record being first appellate court and therefore, it would not be out of place to mention in brief about the facts of the case including the evidences recorded by learned Session Judge.
4. The factual matrix as unfolded from the case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2000 at 9.30 a.m. Shri K. Dilip lodged a written complaint at Aberdeen PS against Salim and others on the allegations that Salim had hit Raju with a sharp cutting weapon and thereby Raju has been seriously injured and was taken to hospital.
5. On the basis of that written complaint Aberdeen PS Case No. 126 of 2000 was started against Salim and others under sections 147/140/149/307/324 IPC.
6. Raju, however, succumbed to his injuries in hospital and accordingly 302 IPC was added. The investigation ultimately culminated in filing of charge sheet under sections 147/148/149/302/34 of Indian Penal Code against the Dinesh Rao, Simon Xaxa, Vikas Chandra Nath, Sanjib Kishor, Depish Ram, S.A. Salim and Satyavelu. Satyavalu absconded during trial and accordingly the case against Satyavelu was filed on 11.04.2007 by the Trial Court. Charges under section 147/148, 324/149 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Leaned Session Judge acquitted all the accused persons from the charges under section 148/324/149 and under section 149/302 IPC except the convict Salim. The appellant has been convicted only under section 147 of IPC.
8. No appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State challenging the said order of acquittal by Learned Sessions Judge and accordingly we are not in a position to disturb the observation and decision of learned Sessions Judge on that score.
9. In the appeal under reference we shall confine our discussion as to how far the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under section 147 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant.
10. The bedrock of the criminal prosecution is First information report, which sets the criminal law in motion and which is the earliest version in respect of the occurrence. The Apex Court has condemned time and again and raised suspicion in lodgement of FIR at a belated stage. Per contra, the Apex court has time and again appreciated the prompt lodgement of FIR on the ground that prompt lodging of FIR rules out the probability of embellishment or concoction of any case.
11. In the appeal under reference, we find that the place of occurrence is 5 Kms away from the Aberdeen PS and defacto complainant K Dilip lodged the FIR within one hour. The Occurrence took place at 8.30 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at 9.30 a.m.
12. The dispute cropped up amongst two groups of students of class XI of Govt. Senior Secondary Sch
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
