LexADALAT PANDIT & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 79 ADALAT PANDIT & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 716-717 of 2008) MAY 14, 2010 [V. S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 302, 302 rlw s. 34, 109 and 149 - Murder - Enmity between the parties as regarcJ C ownership and possession of mango orchard - Quarrel over plucking of mangoes - Eleven accused persons formed unlawful assembly and attacked complainant and his two sons - Gun shots fired at sons, brutally attacked by spears and body dragged to a certain distance resulting in instant death D - Conviction of 11 accused u/ss. 147, 148, 302, 302 r/w s. 34, 109 and 149 ands. 27 of Arms Act by trial court- Conviction of 9 accused persons upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to prove that A-1, A-5 and A-9 had common intention to commit the murder - Thus, given benefit E of doubt and are acquitted - A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-10 were members of unlawful assembly - There was active participation by them - A-4 had actually fired guns - Specific overt acts attributed to A4, A-7 and A-10 by all the witnesses - Evidence of eye-witnesses, though were partisan, is to be F accepted - Plea of alibi of A 3 and A-10 rightly rejected by courts below- Thus, conviction of A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-10 upheld - Arms Act, 1959 - s. 27. According to the prosecution case, there was a fierce enmity between the accused persons and the G complainant on account of ownership and possession of the mango orchard. On the fateful day, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of SN and his brother PN in pursuance of their 79 H 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A common object. Eleven accused persons went to the mango orchard of the complainant for forcibly plucking mango fruits. When the complainant alongwith his two sons-SN and PN, protested against the act of accused persons in plucking the mangoes, accused persons B attacked the three persons using fire arms and spear, resulting in the death of SN and PN. The accused persons were convicted for various offences punishable under ss. 147, 148, 302, 302 rw s 34 as also rw s. 109 and 149 IPC and s. 27 of the Arms Act. A 4 died during the c trial itself and A 8 was acquitted by the High Court giving him benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act. Hence these appeals by the nine accused persons. Allowing the appeals of A-1, A-5 and A-9 and dismissing that of A-2, A-3, A-4, A·6, A-7 and A-10, the D Court HELD: 1.1 After appreciating the evidence of PW-2, PW-·4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8, the High Court recorded a finding that the genesis of the incident lied only in the E fact that when the accused persons insisted on plucking the mangoes, the same was objected to by the complainant and his sons. The High Court is correct in recording the finding that it is on that point of time when the exchange of words took place between the parties F that the seeds of the further incident were sown. Ultimately, the High Court recorded the finding that the identity of the accused persons was fully established by the prosecution witnesses and that all the appellants had gone to the place of occurrence alongwith their respective arms as members of an unlawful assembly G with a common object of asserting right of harvesting the mango crops in the orchard of the informant and were prepared for meeting any resistance with the help of arms carried by the accused persons and that was the common object behind the firing on the two deceased, H who met their instantaneous death. It was on this basis ADALAT PANDIT & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR 81 that the High Court proceeded to convict the accused A persons against whom there was specific evidence. [Para 7) [91-G-H; 92-A-D] 1.2 It cannot be said that A-1, A-5 and A-9 had the intentions to commit the murder and they cannot be said 6 to be the members of the unlawful assembly on account 1 of their mere presence at the place of occurrence and cannot be convicted of the offence u/s. 302/149 IPC. The evidence of the witnesses is seen closely. These three accused persons were undoubtedly referred to and all C . that has been stated by PW-2 is that A-5 was carrying a /athi. The witness has not referred to even A-1 and A-9 having any arms. As regards PW-4, he attributed A-1 and · A-5 carrying a lathi while A-9 carrying a bhala (spear). However, did not refer to any overt a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.