Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Tahir, Bhayyan and Pappu @ Kamina – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly, passed in Sessions Trial No.249 of 2002, under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 IPC, Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (which shall be called in later part of judgment as SC/ST Act) and Section 25 and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly on 19.02.2009 in which the trial court convicted the accused persons only under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 IPC and acquitted from the charges under Section 4/25, Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, hence they are being decided together.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 29.09.2001 the complainant/informant, Ramesh Chandra Bharti, PW-1 moved a written complaint on 24.09.2001 at 08:25 p.m. that on 24.09.2001 at 07:00 p.m. he (complainant) was returning to his house with his brother Suresh Chandra Bharti from their shop and when they reached in front of the shop of Dr. R.K. Sharma, Om Prakash, Haw
Point of law : Object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its ....
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.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
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.
Point of law: In the absence of such finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
