IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH, JJ.
Varghese, S/o. Devassy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 1089 Of 2016, Crl. A. No. 1095 Of 2016, Crl. A. No. 1166 Of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
These appeals have been preferred challenging the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C.No. 718 of 2008. In the above case, nine persons were indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302 and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC.
2. Short facts:
The deceased in this case is one Shameer. In December 2005, an altercation occurred between Shameer and Jayan, the first accused. Jayan was found drinking alcohol in public, which Shameer allegedly objected to, leading to a confrontation. Shameer is said to have hit Jayan on the head with a bottle, causing injuries. As a result, Jayan harboured animosity towards Shameer. The prosecution alleges that the accused Nos. 2 to 7, who are close friends and associates of Jayan, gathered in front of the compound of an unoccupied house belonging to Alappatil Babu and conspired to murder Shameer. Following this conspiracy, the accused Nos. 1 to 7, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, and armed themselves with deadly weapons, including a chopper and iron pipes, lay in wait in front of a house owned by one Madhavan, located at Door No. TC15/342. When Shameer arrived at the spot, unaware of the presence of the accused, they allegedly attacked him and inflicted multiple injuries. It is alleged that the first accused cut Shameer with a chopper, while the third and fourth accused attacked him with iron pipes. The chopper was then handed over to the second accused, who also inflicted injuries with it. The accused Nos. 6 and 7 used MO1 to MO3 weapons, handed over to them by the accused Nos. 1 to 3, and went on to inflict injuries. As many as 57 injuries were sustained by the deceased. The 5th accused stood a bit further away guarding the place and did not inflict any injuries. When the prosecution witnesses, cited as PWs 2, 3, and 4, arrived at the scene, the accused threatened them and later fled. The first informant, the nephew of the deceased, also came to the scene. The injured Shameer was transported to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur in a police jeep., which came to the spot, on receiving information about the incident. Upon arrival, the doctor found him gasping, but there was no pulse or blood pressure. Shameer was pronounced dead at 10:15 p.m. on the same day.
3. Registration of the crime and investigation:
After Shameer was pronounced dead, PW1 went to the Mannuthy Police Station and lodged the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) at 2:00 a.m. on 15.05.2016, based on which the FIR (Ext.P9) was registered by PW.15, Sub Inspector of police, Mannuthy, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Ext.P2 inquest was prepared on 15.5.2016. The accused Nos. 1 to 8 were apprehended at 10:30 a.m. on the same day, and the 9th accused was apprehended on 01.06.2016. The accused was obtained in police custody and based on the information furnished, the clothes worn by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 were recovered. PW11, a Police Surgeon attached to the Government Medical College, Thrissur, conducted the autopsy and issued a post-mortem certificate (Ext.P6). In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the accused Nos. 8 and 9 harboured accused Nos. 1 to 7 and they were included in the array of the accused. The initial investigation was conducted by PW16, and it was later taken over by PW17, who completed the investigation and laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) - III Thrissur.
4. Proceedings before the Court:
After complying with the procedure, the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) - III Thrissur committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thrissur. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Accused Nos
Munshi Prasad and Ors. V. State of Bihar
Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. Public Prosecutor, H.C. of A.P.
Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra
Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
The court affirmed that involvement in an unlawful assembly and conspiracy to commit murder can establish liability, requiring only shared intent, not active participation in the crime.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on the established common object of the unlawful assembly, supported by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence.
The court established that in cases of unlawful assembly, all members can be held vicariously liable for the actions taken in furtherance of a common object, and that the prosecution's failure to exp....
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....
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must establish a common object for unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC; absence of motive and specific allegations can lead to acquittal.
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.