1. Free fight between two groups — Cross cases — Conviction for rioting and causing hurt with common object — Revision against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18379
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CH.SRINIVASAS RAO AND 9 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF A.P. REP BY PP. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.46 of 2009 | Criminal Revision Case No.45 of 2009
Important Points
In a free fight between two groups, conviction under Section 149 IPC is impermissible unless the common object and specific roles of each accused are established; non-explanation of injuries on accused parties renders the prosecution case doubtful.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeals and Revisions
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 324, 34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 225, 226 - Free fight between two groups - Case and counter-case - Necessity of separate Public Prosecutors - Non-explanation of injuries on accused - Conviction under Section 149 in free fight impermissible.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 225, 226 - In case and counter-case, both cases should be tried by same Court, but the Public Prosecutor in one case shall not act as Public Prosecutor in the counter case - Evidence in one case cannot be looked into in the counter case - Judgment in both cases shall be pronounced on the same day - This is to avoid conflicting judgments.
Facts of the case:
On the night of 25/26-08-2001, a fight and altercation occurred between two groups, resulting in injuries and one death. Two calendar cases (CCNo.365/2001 and CCNo.366/2001) were initiated. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, reducing the sentence for Section 324 r/w 149 IPC. The convicted persons filed the present revisions.
Findings of Court:
The conviction and sentences under Sections 148 and 149 r/w 324 IPC are set aside. The accused are entitled to benefits of doubt. Fine amounts, if deposited, shall be returned. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure for case and counter-case was properly followed, particularly regarding the appointment of a single Public Prosecutor. 2. Whether conviction under Section 149 IPC is permissible in a free fight where individual overt acts are not attributed. 3. Whether non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused renders the prosecution case doubtful.
Ratio Decidendi: In a free fight between two groups, the investigating agency must ascertain the specific aggressor who inflicted injury upon a particular person. The law of common object and common intention cannot be separated in the commission of a free fight. Conviction under Sections 148 and 149 IPC is impermissible unless the common intention and common object between particular groups is established. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused suppresses the true genesis and origin of the occurrence, throwing doubt on the prosecution case.
Result: Criminal Revision Cases allowed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 225, 226 - In case and counter-case, both cases should be tried by same Court, but the Public Prosecutor in one case shall not act as Public Prosecutor in the counter case - Evidence in one case cannot be looked into in the counter case - Judgment in both cases shall be pronounced on the same day - This is to avoid conflicting judgments.
Facts of the case:
On the night of 25/26-08-2001, a fight and altercation occurred between two groups, resulting in injuries and one death. Two calendar cases (CCNo.365/2001 and CCNo.366/2001) were initiated. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, reducing the sentence for Section 324 r/w 149 IPC. The convicted persons filed the present revisions.
Findings of Court:
The conviction and sentences under Sections 148 and 149 r/w 324 IPC are set aside. The accused are entitled to benefits of doubt. Fine amounts, if deposited, shall be returned. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure for case and counter-case was properly followed, particularly regarding the appointment of a single Public Prosecutor. 2. Whether conviction under Section 149 IPC is permissible in a free fight where individual overt acts are not attributed. 3. Whether non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused renders the prosecution case doubtful.
Ratio Decidendi: In a free fight between two groups, the investigating agency must ascertain the specific aggressor who inflicted injury upon a particular person. The law of common object and common intention cannot be separated in the commission of a free fight. Conviction under Sections 148 and 149 IPC is impermissible unless the common intention and common object between particular groups is established. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused suppresses the true genesis and origin of the occurrence, throwing doubt on the prosecution case.
Result: Criminal Revision Cases allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Assistant Public Prosecutor
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Assistant Public Prosecutor
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: free fight negates common object; prosecution failed to identify aggressors; single Public Prosecutor improper. Respondent: conviction based on evidence. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Convictions set aside — Petitioners granted benefit of doubt — Fine returned — Revision allowed. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Can Section 149 IPC apply in a free fight between two groups to convict all members?
No. In a free fight, the common object under Section 149 cannot be presumed; specific aggressors who inflicted injuries must be identified and convicted individually. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. What is the effect of prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by accused?
It leads to an inference that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and did not present the true version, casting doubt on the prosecution case. (Para 6 )
6. Is it permissible to appoint a single Public Prosecutor to conduct both case and counter-case?
No. The proper procedure requires separate Public Prosecutors for each case to avoid conflict and ensure fair trial. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
7. Can the appellate court confirm conviction in a free fight case while acknowledging the impossibility of determining the aggressor?
Such a confirmation is a dangerous proposition and makes the prosecution case doubtful, warranting acquittal. (Para 7 )
COMMON ORDER
1. The Criminal Revision Case No.46 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioners/Accused in CCNo.365 of 2001 by challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2005 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurazala, wherein Accused No’s.1, 3 to 10 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months each, for the offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to suffer two (2) years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default to pay fine amount, they shall suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each, for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The same was assailed before Appellate Court vide Criminal Appeal No.307 of 2005, wherein the Appellate Court i.e., X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Cast track Court) of Guntur at Narasaraopet has found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code only and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court i.e., Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years is reduced to imprisonment for one (1) year each and the remaining part of the conviction and sentence was kept intact.
The Criminal Revision Case No.45 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioners/Accused in CCNo.366/2001 by challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2005 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurazala wherein Accused No’s.1 to 11 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months each, for the offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to suffer two (2) years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default to pay fine amount, they shall suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each, for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The same was assailed to the Appellate Court vide Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2005, wherein the Appellate Court i.e., X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Cast track Court) of Guntur at Narasaraopet has found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code only and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court i.e., Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years is reduced to imprisonment for one (1) year each and the remaining part of the conviction and sentence was kept intact.
2. Admittedly, the facts suggest that on 25/26-08-2001 night at about 12.30 A.M., there was a fight and altercation between two groups of people. During such fight and altercation, several persons were injured. Amongst them, one person was expired. On the basis of such free fight between two groups, two Calendar Cases (CCs) were started being CCNo.365 of 2001 and CCNo.366 of 2001. Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate heard both the cases i.e., case and counter-case together and passed the Judgments. Both the Judgments were assailed before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has confirmed the Order of conviction. Hence, the accused/convicted persons have preferred the instant Criminal Revision Cases.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submit that there are several discrepancies in the case of prosecution. The procedure for dealing with case and counter-case has not been properly followed. He submits that in case of free fight between two groups, the learned Magist
