Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2296
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Rajesh & Others
Versus
The State (Nct of Delhi)
CRL.A. Nos. 18, 49 & 27 of 2000
Decided On: 17-10-2014
For the Appellants:Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate Instructed by Harsh Bora, Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate Instructed by Akshay Bipin, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Varun Goswami, APP Inspector Braj Mohan, P.S. Farsh Bazar, Advocates.
The judgment establishes the principles of unlawful assembly, rioting, common intention, and individual liability in a sudden mutual fight.
Headnote:
Unlawful Assembly - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 147, Section 148, Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 323 IPC - The judgment discusses the essence of Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, the distinction between unlawful assembly and rioting, and the principles of common intention and individual liability in a sudden mutual fight.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two cross complaints resulting from a rioting incident between two groups at a market. The court analyzed the evidence to determine the aggressor group and the nature of the fight.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that neither group formed an unlawful assembly and acquitted all accused of the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It convicted the appellants for specific offenses based on the injuries caused.
Issues: The main issue was to determine whether the groups formed an unlawful assembly and the nature of the fight to establish liability for specific offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a sudden mutual fight, the person causing the injury alone is liable for his own acts. It emphasized the distinction between unlawful assembly and rioting, and the principles of common intention and individual liability.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of certain offenses and convicted them for specific offenses based on the injuries caused, altering the conviction for one appellant from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Crl.A.No.18/2000 filed by Rajesh, Munna Lal, Prakash Chand, Subhash Chand and Ashok has to be decided only with respect to Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand, because Prakash Chand died on November 23, 2002 and Ashok died on May 04, 2009, and as recorded in the order dated August 21, 2013, the criminal appeal abates as regards Prakash Chand and Ashok. Along therewith Crl.A.No.49/2000, filed by Vijay has to be decided. The reason being that all of them have been convicted vide decision dated December 15, 1999 in FIR No.183/1985 PS Farsh Bazar.
2. Co-accused Swaroop Chand died during trial and hence proceedings against him were dropped by the learned Trial Judge on May 26, 1998.
3. Whereas Vijay Kumar has been held guilty for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also the offences punishable under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
4. Vide order on sentence dated December 22, 1999, where Vijay has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Vijay, Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
5. Crl.A.No.27/2000, filed by Murari Lal, Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Ramnik, Om Prakash, Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath and Raj Kumar is also being decided along with Crl.A.No.18/2000 and Crl.A.No.49/2000 notwithstanding the appellants of Crl.A.No.27/2000 being convicted by a separate decision but of even date (December 15, 1999). All of them have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC, for which offences they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The order on sentence is dated December 22, 1999 i.e. of the same date on which the order on sentence was passed in the other case.
6. The FIR in which these appellants were accused is FIR No.184/1985 PS Farsh Bazar.
7. It is a case of two cross complaints resulting in registration of FIR No.183/1985 in which Rajesh, Munna Lal, Prakash Chand, Subhash Chand, Ashok and Swaroop Chand were named as accused and FIR No.184/1985 in which Murari Lal, Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Ramnik, Om Prakash, Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath and Raj Kumar were named as accused.
8. The two cross FIRs were registered concerning an incident of rioting which admittedly too
