Back
2021 Supreme(Jhk) 1010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Md. Sahnawaj – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.842 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.423 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.549 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.694 of 2013
Decided on : 23-06-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl.PP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove shared common object and knowledge of the likely outcome of the act to establish criminal liability under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a murderous attack on Md. Sayeed and his son Ejaj Ahmad by an unlawful assembly, resulting in the death of Ejaj Ahmad. The accused were convicted and sentenced, and the appeals were filed challenging the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the application of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the medical evidence to determine the liability of the accused. It found discrepancies in the evidence and concluded that not all accused shared the common object to commit murder.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of prosecution witnesses, the application of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the liability of each accused in the attack.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere participation in an unlawful assembly is not sufficient to establish criminal liability under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized the need to establish shared common object and knowledge of the likely outcome of the act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of some appellants under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, affirmed the conviction under other sections, and adjusted the sentences based on the findings.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Chakradharpur P.S Case No. 41 of 2005 was lodged against Md. Aslam, Md. Sartaj, Md. Ansar, Md. Sahnawaj, Md. Sahawaj @ Baris and Sawana Begum @ Baby Sabiha, on an allegation that they formed unlawful assembly and mounted murderous attack on Md. Sayeed and his son Ejaj Ahmad with an intention to kill them. Ejaj Ahmad succumbed to the injuries on 15.04.2005 and accordingly the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the report. Md. Sahawaj @ Baris was declared juvenile and the case records were accordingly separated. A charge-sheet was filed against Md. Sartaj Alam and Md. Sahawaj @ Baris under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on a supplementary charge-sheet was laid against Md. Aslam, Md. Ansar, Md. Sahnawaj and Sawana Begum @ Baby Sabiha while Md. Amiruddin who was not named in the First Information Report was shown absconder and his case record was split up. A common charge against the above named accused persons was framed under sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, by an order dated 15.12.2006 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions against them in S.T. No. 14 of 2006, except Md. Amiruddin. After Md. Amiruddin was apprehended the record of sessions case with respect to him was numbered S.T. No. 246 of 2006 and finally this sessions case was amalgamated with S.T. No. 14 of 2006.
2. In Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2006/ Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced to RI for two years under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; RI for one year under section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code; RI for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to serve further sentence of SI for six months.
3. This batch of the criminal appeals are preferred by the convicts under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the judgment of their conviction in the aforesaid sessions trials.
4. Mr. A. K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants has raised three fold contentions : (i) testimony of the prosecution witnesses suffers from such serious contradiction as to place reliance to convict the appellants for murder, (ii) the prosecution witnesses have exaggerated their version of the occurrence which is reflected in their cross-examination read with the admissions of the investigating officer regarding the statements not made by them in course of the investigation, and (iii) the prosecution has failed to establish that murder of Ejaj Ahmad was committed in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly, and, at the best the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Senior counsel has referred to the judgments in “Imrat Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” (2020) 14 SCC 257; “Sabbi Mallesu and others vs. State of A.P.” (2006) 10 SCC 543, and; “Badal Murmu and others vs. State of West Bengal” (2014) 3 SCC 366.
6. Mr. Avishek Prasad, the learned counsel who appears for Md. Amiruddin in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 423 of 2013 has relied on the judgment in “State of Punjab vs. Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju and others” (2007) 9 SCC 791.
7. The prosecution has examined twenty witnesses during the trial to prove the charges framed against the accused, out of which six witnesses are intimately related to Ejaj Ahmad. PW1-Ali Hassain, PW2-Suraiya Tabbasum, PW5-Noor Jahan, PW6-Md. Sayeed and PW12-Nazia Tarannum were projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that they are reliable and trustworthy witnesses. These witnesses are close relatives of Ejaj Ahmad and therefore their testimony is required to be scrutinized with the kind of care and caution as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. But at the same time we also need to keep in mi
