THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, K. SEMA, JJ
Sri Suresh Munda S/o. Sri Mutal Munda - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
Crl.A./42/2020
Decided On : 12-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 302, 436 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellants convicted for various offences including murder and rioting, with sentences running concurrently - The incident involved a large group attacking a community, resulting in grievous injuries and death - The court emphasized the recognition of accused by witnesses despite inconsistencies in testimonies - The application of Section 149 was upheld, affirming that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offences committed in furtherance of a common object. (Paras 1 , 30 , 34 )
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374 - Scope of appeal - The appellate court's role is to assess the legality and correctness of the lower court's judgment without substituting its own view unless the decision is perverse or illegal. (Paras 18 , 36 )
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction for rioting and murder, where a group attacked the Harijan community, resulting in injuries and fatalities. The informant identified the accused during the attack, which was motivated by a monetary dispute. (Paras 2 , 30 )
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence to uphold the convictions under the IPC, particularly emphasizing the role of the unlawful assembly and the recognition of the accused by witnesses. (Paras 34 , 36 )
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against the appellants, the application of Section 149, and the implications of witness inconsistencies. (Paras 20 , 22 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of an unlawful assembly and the common object of the group justified the application of Section 149, holding all members accountable for the actions taken in furtherance of that object. (Paras 34 , 35 )
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. K. Medhi, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C, against the judgment and order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2001, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 446 of 1996, under Sections 147 /148 /149 /324 /326 /302 / 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by which the appellants were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) of 6 (six) months for Section 147 of the IPC, RI of 1 (one) year for Section 148 of the IPC, RI of 3 (three) months for Section 447 of the IPC, RI of 6 (six) months for Section 324 of the IPC, RI of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, Simple Imprisonment (SI) of 1 (one) month for the Section 436 of the IPC and RI of life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, SI for 2 (two) months for Section 302 of the IPC, each. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar dated 29.08.1996 by the PW-3. It has been stated that on the previous night around 45 (Forty-Five) persons of Munda community from Jamuguri village armed with bows, arrows and guns had surrounded the residences of the people belonging to the Harijan community and launched attack by arrows and set ablaze the houses. As a result of the attack, Krishna Harijan, Keshwar Harijan and Sripati Harijan sustained grievous injuries. The homestead and properties were burnt to ashes. The informant had also identified number of accused persons. The details of the properties which were destroyed were also given. Based on the Ejahar, the formal F.I.R. was registered and investigation was made. In the meantime, injured Keshwar Harijan, who is the father of the informant, had passed away. After completion of the investigation, the Charge-sheet was laid, whereafter, charges were framed by the learned Court and on its denial, the trial had begun.
3. In the trial, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 (eleven) number of witnesses. Thereafter, witnesses of 4 (four) number of E.O(s) were also taken.
4. PW-1 is the Sarkari Gaonbura from village Tilai Danga and had deposed that the complainant was from the neighbouring village Jamuguri. In his cross- examination however, he had clarified that he was not present at the place of occurrence and did not know who had committed the offence.
5. PW-2 is also from the same village as PW-1 and is a signatory in the Seizure List, which was proved as Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, however, he had clarified that he was not present in the place of occurrence and does not know who had committed the offence.
6. PW-3 is the informant, who had deposed that 40-45 (Forty to Forty-Five) persons had attacked the residential houses of the informant and the families in which, his father, mother and one brother were grievously injured. Subsequently, his father had died at the Diphu Hospital, where he was taken in a precarious condition. His mother, Sripati and brother, Krishna had also undergone treatment for a month in the Diphu Hospital. He had stated that the reason for the attack was monetary dispute. He had also deposed that he could recognise the accused persons in the moonlight as it was a full moon night. The aspect of recognition was also reiterated in the cross-examination. In the cross- examination, however, he had stated that he did not see who had shot the father, mother and brother and could only hear regarding the fact that accused Kanu Munda had shot his father, accused Suren Munda had shot his mother and accused Jatia Munda had shot his brother by bow and arrow.
7. PW-4 is the brother of the informant, who had also stated that he could witness the attack and also, the killing of his father and injuries caused to his brother and mother. He had also deposed that he could recognise the accused persons as it was a full moon night.
8.
Subran @ Subramanian and Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Subran @ Subramanian and Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Ramchandran and Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Ramesh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
Surendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ravindra alias Babloo and Ors. (2019) 19 SCC 65
Shaji and Ors. vs. State of Kerala
The court upheld the convictions under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302, affirming that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offences committed in furtherance of a common object.
The prosecution must establish a common object for unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC; absence of motive and specific allegations can lead to acquittal.
(1) Murder – Evidence of eye-witness should be of very sterling quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature....
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....
The judgment established that even if Section 149 IPC is not attracted, the appellants could still be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC if the common intention to commit the crime and the part....
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.
Common object – No overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when charge is under Section 149 IPC – Presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.
In cases of unlawful assembly leading to murder, all involved members can be held vicariously liable, and eyewitness testimonies must be credible even if witnesses are related to the victim.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.