Involvement of deceased in crimes does not invalidate convictions under related sections when sufficient evidence exists.

ORDER

The accused No.1 to 4 are the revision petitioners. Accused No.5 passed away by the time in which the trial was commenced and accused No. 1 to 4 were proceeded with the trial and found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w 149 IPC and passed an order of sentence for the respective offences. In appeal, it was confirmed, against which, the accused No.1 to 4 came up mainly on three reasons;

(I) In order to attract Section 143 (series)

offences (143, 147, 148 r/w Section 149 IPC ), there should be involvement of atleast five persons. The accused No.5 passed away. He is not an active participant and as such, the conviction rendered for the said offences cannot be sustained.

(II) The injuries sustained are minor in nature and not sufficient to bring home the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and (III) The weapon used, a crow bar, was not recovered or let in evidence.

2. In fact, this revision is against the concurrent findings and judgment of conviction rendered by both the courts below. In order to fasten criminal liability under Section 143 series offences, there should be involvement of atleast five persons. The mere fact that one among the accused passed away prior to the commencement of trial would not vitiate the finding of offence under that series when there is evidence to show the involvement of the fifth person, who passed away. The accused No.1 to 4 actively participated in the commission of offence and nothing was brought to the notice of this Court in order to interfere with the abovesaid fact finding and accused No.5, who passed away prior to the trial had also facilitated the commission of offence by offering sufficient guard and he was found in the company of other accused persons.

3. The non-production of weapon used for the offence, a crow bar, may not be fatal to the prosecution, when the identity of the weapon used was spoken to by the victims and stood supported by the medical evidence adduced through the doctor, who attended the victim, PW9 and had given Ext.P6 wound certificate. The medical opinion that injuries are possible by the user of a crow bar would give sufficient corroboration to the ocular testimony of the victim.

4. The injuries sustained includes head injury and contusion over scalp besides fracture to the leg. Hence, it would bring home the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC . Hence, the judgment of conviction deserves no interference.

5. The sentence awarded for the offence found to be so exorbitant while taking into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. There is only a single blow on the vital part of the victim i.e. over the scalp besides a fracture to one leg. No bad antecedent was reported. Hence, a reformative approach can be adopted by ordering substantive sentence for the period of pre-trial detention for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC and a fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each by accused No.1 to 4, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each, for the offence under Section 148 ten days simple imprisonment by adjusting the same towards the period of pre-trial detention already undergone and a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months each. No separate sentence is ordered for the offence under Section 143 , 147 and 324 in view of the abovesaid sentence ordered. On realisation of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be released to the husband, PW1 and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) shall be released to the wife, PW2 under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C..

The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed in part accordingly. The revision peti