SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, KULDEEP MATHUR, JJ.
Ram Sawrup son of Chagan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.70 of 1990
Decided on : 17-11-2022

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of vicarious liability by virtue of Section 149 IPC requires evidence of the formation of an unlawful assembly, and the court must identify and punish only those who have exceeded the right of private defence.

Headnote:

Conviction Quashed - Unlawful Assembly - Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 IPC - The court quashed the conviction of the surviving appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and Sections 147, 148 and 323/149 IPC. However, these accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The substantive sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 323 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a quarrel between two parties, leading to the fatal injury of the deceased Ramchandra. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased, while the defense claimed that the prosecution case was false and fabricated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no significant animosity between the deceased and the accused party. It concluded that there was no unlawful assembly and the accused could only be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused formed an unlawful assembly and were responsible for the fatal injury to the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no evidence to support the formation of an unlawful assembly and the invocation of vicarious liability by virtue of Section 149 IPC was unwarranted. It also cited a judgment to support the principle that Section 34/149 IPC will not be applicable in the case of persons exercising their right of private defence.

Final Decision: The court quashed the conviction of the surviving appellants for certain offences, convicted them for the offence under Section 323 IPC, and reduced their substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them.

JUDGMENT :

MEHTA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 31.01.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.67/1987 arising out of FIR No.201/1987 registered at the Police Station Kotwali, District Bhilwara, whereby the appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as below :

Name of the appellant

Offence for which convicted

Sentence, fine and default sentence awarded

Ram Sawrup Pappu Raju Dinesh

Section 147 IPC

One year’s simple imprisonment

Section 302/149 IPC

Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one month

Section 323/149 IPC

Three months’ simple imprisonment

Radhey Shyam

Section 148 IPC

One year’s simple imprisonment

Section 302/149 IPC

Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one month

Section 323/149 IPC

Three months’ simple imprisonment

Bal Kishan (Since deceased – appeal stands abated to his extent vide order dated 20.07.2000)

Section 148 IPC

One year’s simple imprisonment

Section 302 IPC

Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one month

Section 323/149 IPC

Three months’ simple imprisonment

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The appeal was originally filed by six accused-appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.6 Bal Kishan passed away and the appeal to his extent was dismissed as having abated vide order dated 20.07.2000. Appellant No.6 Dinesh also passed away on 03.04.2015. The death certificate issued by the competent authority is placed on record. Thus, the appeal is dismissed as having abated to the extent of the appellant No.5 Dinesh as well.

4. Brief facts relevant and essential for adjudication of the appeal are noted hereinbelow :-

5. Dara Singh (P.W.11) submitted a written report (Ex.P/26) to the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Bhilwara on 18.05.1987 at about 08.20 p.m. alleging inter alia that in the evening at about 8 o’clock, he and his father Ramchandra were taking meals at their house. At that time, Sita Ram Rajput’s wife, who stays in the neighbourhood raised an alarm that Devkaran and Dayaram Gurjar were being assaulted by Ram Sawrup, Bal Kishan, Radhey Shyam, Pappu, Raju and Dinesh. The complainant and his father proceeded towards the place of incident in an attempt to save their neighbours Devkaran and Dayaram, on which, Ram Sawrup and his companions exhorted that the interveners had come and they should also be beaten. Saying so, the accused diverted their attention towards them. Bal Kishan was having a knife in his hand, whereas Radhey Shyam was armed with a Gupti. Bal Kishan inflicted a blow of knife on the abdomen of his father. Ramsawrup gave a blow of lathi on the head of the informant. Meanwhile, all the accused were raising exhortations of killing. Radhey Shyam caught hold of him and tried to inflict a Gupti blow to him, on which, Subhash Singh Rathore, who operates a flour mill, took him inside his shop and bolted the door to save him. The informant also received injuries on his head, left hand fingers and right knee. Previously also, these people had beaten Dayaram and he (the informant) had intervened and thus, the assailants were bearing an ill will against him. His father’s condition was precarious and he had been admitted to the hospital.

6. On the basis of this report, FIR No.201/1987 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149/307 IPC and investigation was commenced. Ramchandra expired as a result of the injuries caused to him and thus, offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. The dead body of Ram

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top