1. Multiple persons charged with murder and other offences under Sections 302 and 149, IPC, arising from factional rivalry and a boundary dispute. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 164
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
1. Masalti (in Cr. A. No. 30 of 1964)
2. Munga Ram and others (In Cr. A. No. 31 of 1964)
3. Bhagwati and others (In Cr. A. No. 32 of 1964)
4. Chandan Singh and others (In Cr. A. No. 33 of 1964)
5. Laxmi Prasad (In Cr. A. No. 34 of 1964) Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. (In all the Appeals), Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 30 to 34 of 1964. 203
Advocates Appeared
Mr. M.S. K. Sastri, Advocate, (at State Expense), for Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 30 of 1964); M/s. I. M. Lall and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, for Appellants (In Cr. A. No. 31 of 1964); Mr. V. S. Sawhney, Advocate for Appellants (In Cr. A. Nos. 32 to 34 of1964); M/s. O. P. Rana, Atiqur Rehman and C, P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondent (In all the Appeals.)
Advocates:
Atiqur Rehman, C.P.LAL, GANPAT RAI, I.M.LAL, M.S.K.Shastri, O.P.RANA, V.S.Sawhney
Atiqur Rehman, C.P.LAL, GANPAT RAI, I.M.LAL, M.S.K.Shastri, O.P.RANA, V.S.Sawhney
Conviction under Section 149 IPC does not require proof of a specific overt act by every member of an unlawful assembly; vicarious liability applies if the common object is established. Death sentences may be justified for such members based on the gravity of the crime and shared intent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 149, 307, 201, 511, 395, 396, 449 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 374, 375, 540 - Murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly - Common object - Confirmation of death sentence - Reliability of partisan witnesses - Overt act not necessary for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Death sentence can be imposed on members of an unlawful assembly even if they did not personally commit the murder, provided they shared the common object and the circumstances justify such a penalty. (Paras 7, 14, 17, 20)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374 - Confirmation of death sentence - The High Court must independently consider the entire case, examine all material circumstances, and satisfy itself that the offence is established beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence of death is fully justified. (Para 8)
(C) Evidence - Partisan witnesses - Evidence given by interested or partisan witnesses should not be mechanically rejected on the sole ground of partisanship; instead, it must be weighed carefully, considering discrepancies, probability, and consistency. (Para 14)
(D) Indian Penal Code - Section 149 - Vicarious liability - Conviction under Section 149 does not require proof of a specific overt act by every member of the unlawful assembly; it is sufficient to prove that the person was a member of the assembly and entertained the common object as defined under Section 141. (Paras 17, 18) (E) Sentencing - Death penalty - In cases of mass murder by an unlawful assembly, the death sentence may be justified for those armed with deadly weapons who shared the common object of extermination, regardless of whether they personally caused the death of the victims. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
A violent clash occurred between two rival factions in a village following a boundary dispute. Members of one faction, armed with firearms and other weapons, attacked the house of the rival faction, killed five male members, and burnt their bodies. Multiple persons were charged with murder and other offences under the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted several and sentenced ten to death, which was subsequently confirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court had properly discharged its duty under the procedural law for confirming death sentences by applying a safe test of consistency among witnesses. It held that the non-examination of certain witnesses did not prejudice the defence as the trial court had reasonably exercised its discretion. The court further found that the evidence established the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object to exterminate the victims' family.
Issues: Whether the High Court failed in its duty to independently evaluate the case for death sentence confirmation; whether the non-examination of certain witnesses prejudiced the defence; whether conviction under Section 149 IPC requires a specific overt act; and whether the death sentence was justified for those who did not personally commit the killing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 149 IPC imposes vicarious liability, meaning a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object, regardless of their individual overt act. It further held that partisan evidence should be weighed cautiously but not rejected mechanically. Regarding sentencing, the death penalty can be imposed on members of an unlawful assembly if the gravity of the crime and the shared common object justify it, particularly when the accused were armed with firearms.
Result: Appeals dismissed, and convictions and sentences confirmed, except for three young accused whose death sentences were modified to imprisonment for life.
Judgement Key Points
Facts
Forty persons, including the appellants, were charged with multiple offenses, primarily murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, arising from an incident on 29 November 1961 at around 8 a.m. in village Bilati Khet, Jhansi district, amid longstanding factional rivalry between groups led by Gayadin (victim) and Laxmi Prasad (appellant and Pradhan). A boundary dispute on 28 November escalated when Laxmi Prasad, after being injured by Bahoran (Gayadin's son), gathered an armed crowd (with guns, spears, swords, gandasa, lathis) and attacked Gayadin's house. They killed Gayadin, his sons Brindaban, Radha Saran, Dayaram, and Shiroman Singh by shooting; dragged the bodies to a field, piled them with cowdung cakes, sprinkled kerosene, and set them ablaze. Bahoran lodged FIR naming 35 (later 40) assailants. Trial court convicted 35, sentencing 10 to death and 25 to life imprisonment; acquitted 5. High Court acquitted 7 more, confirmed convictions/sentences for 28 (including death for 10 gun-wielders), applying a test of consistent testimony from at least 4 witnesses out of 12 eyewitnesses (mostly from victims' faction; evidence of 2 rejected). Supreme Court heard appeals by 16 accused. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Ratio
In murder trials involving death sentences, appellate courts must cautiously scrutinize all arguments, evidence infirmities, and circumstances before confirming conviction or sentence. (!)
Failure to examine certain listed witnesses (e.g., won over or mentally shocked) is not fatal if prosecution acts bona fide, their evidence is not essential for just decision (assessed from prior statements), defense could examine them, and court declines to summon under Section 540 CrPC after deliberation; no prejudice presumed. (!) (!) (!)
Partisan/interested witness testimony (common in factional village murders) cannot be mechanically discarded but must be carefully weighed for discrepancies, genuineness, and probability; mechanical rejection leads to failure of justice. (!)
In unlawful assembly cases with common murderous object, witnesses need not specify each member's overt act (especially in crowd assaults where not all weapons used); conviction sustainable if assembly's formation, arming, and object proved. (!) (!)
In multi-offender/multi-victim cases, convicting based on consistent testimony from 2-4+ witnesses (a "mechanical" numerical test) is reasonable/safe, prioritizing quality but aided by quantity for reliability; acquittal of fewer-supported accused permissible. (!)
Under Section 302/149 IPC, members of unlawful assembly with common object to exterminate victims are equally guilty of murder even without personal killing; death sentence justifiable for armed (e.g., gun-carrying) participants, not mechanically limited to direct killers. (!) (!)
Supreme Court may modify death to life imprisonment for young members (e.g., 18-24 years) likely joining under family elder pressure in factional assemblies. (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenges to death sentence confirmation, non-examination of material witnesses, reliance on partisan evidence, and the necessity of proving specific overt acts for unlawful assembly membership. (Para 8 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 20 )
3. The court evaluated the High Court's independent review of death sentences, the admissibility of partisan evidence, and the nature of vicarious liability under Section 149, IPC. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 )
4. Membership in an unlawful assembly is determined by the common object; Section 149, IPC imposes vicarious liability regardless of whether every member committed a specific overt act. (Para 17 )
5. Convictions and sentences confirmed, except for three young accused whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. (Para 21 )
6. Should evidence from partisan or interested witnesses be automatically rejected in criminal trials?
No. While such evidence must be weighed carefully for discrepancies and probability, mechanical rejection solely on the ground of partisanship would lead to a failure of justice, especially in cases involving factional disputes. (Para 14 )
7. Is it necessary to prove a specific overt act against every member of an unlawful assembly to sustain a conviction under Section 149, IPC?
No. Section 149, IPC establishes vicarious liability. If an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, every member of the assembly is guilty, regardless of whether they personally committed a specific illegal act. (Para 15 , 17 )
8. Is the prosecution mandated to examine every witness listed in the witness list, even if they are believed to be won over by the defence?
No. It is unsound to require the examination of every witness if the prosecutor bona fide believes they have been won over or terrorised, provided the court finds their evidence non-essential for a just decision. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. Can the death penalty be imposed on a person convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC, if they did not personally commit the murder?
Yes. The imposition of the death sentence on members of an unlawful assembly who did not personally kill is a matter of fact and circumstance, depending on the gravity of the conduct and requirements of justice. (Para 20 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :Forty persons were charged with having committed several offences the principal one of which was under section 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against these persons was tried by the first Additional Sessions Judge at Jhansi. The other charges framed against them were under S.307/149, 201/149 and 511, 395, 396, 149 and 449, I.P.C. The learned trial Judge held that none of the charges had been proved against five of the accused persons. He also found that the charges under Sections 395 and 396 were not proved against any of them. In regard to the remaining charges, he found that 35 out of 40 accused persons were guilty. For the major offence charged under S.302/149, he sentenced 10 accused persons to death and 25 others to imprisonment for life. He also directed that the said accused persons should undergo different terms of imprisonment for the remaining offences; but for the purpose of the present appeals, it is unnecessary to refer them.
2. After the learned trial Judge pronounced his judgment on the 31st December, 1962, the 35 accused persons who had been convicted by him preferred three appeals between them before the Allahabad High Court, whereas the sentences of death imposed on 10 accused persons by the learned trial Judge were submitted to the said High Court for confirmation. The High Court has held that 7 out of the 35 appellants before it were not proved to have committed any of the offences, and so, they were ordered to be acquitted. In regard to the remaining 28 appellants, the High Court has confirmed the orders of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court. In the result, the reference made to the High Court for confirmation of the sentences of death imposed on the 10 accused persons by the trial Court was allowed. It is against this decision of the High Court that the present five appeals have been brought to this Court by special leave, and the number of accused persons who have brought these appeals before us is 16.
3. Before dealing with the points raised in these appeals, it is necessary to set out very briefly the relevant facts on which the prosecution case against the appellants and their co-accused substantially rests. The incident which has given rise to the present criminal proceedings took place on the 29th November, 1961 in village Bilati Khet in the district of Jhansi at about 8 a.m. It is clear that this village is cursed with keen rivalry and enmity between two factions. One group was led by Gayadin who and four other members of his family were murdered on the said date. All these murders were committed according to the prosecution, by the members of the rival faction amongst whom are included the present appellants before us. Criminal proceedings have continued between the parties for several years almost without interruption. The rival group was led by Laxmi Prasad alias Laxmi Narain who is one of the appellants in this Court. In the last election of the village Panchayat Laxmi Prasad succeeded as Pradhan of the village and defeated the candidate set up by Gayadin. On the 28th November, 1961, a boundary dispute led to an incident between the members of the two groups. This dispute related to two fields one of which belonged to Gayadin and the other to Laxmi Prasad. Attempts were made to settle this dispute by arbitration, but they failed. It appears that Laxmi Prasad and the members of his group did not agree to submit to any arbitration and they left the meeting called for the purpose threatening that they would see that the matter in dispute between them was settled the next day. It is on this grim note that the incident of the 28th November ended.
4. On the 29th November in the early morning, Bahoran, one of the sons of Gayadin, had gone out to ease himself. He was then carrying a pharasa. In the field he met Laxmi Prasad who attacked him with a lathi. Bahoran retaliated this attack with his own pharasa and in the scuffle th
