LexANAND MOHAN versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 1 ANAND MOHAN v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1804-1805 of 2009 etc.) JULY 10, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 3021149, 3071149 and 3021 109 - Prosecution of 36 accused - Murder of District Magistrate - In funeral procession of political leader who was C murdered by unknown criminals - By brother of the deceased leader, at the instigation of the accused - FIR by Police Officer - Ten of the fourteen witnesses near the place of occurrence deptJsing that only A-1 exhorted the shooter and not A-2, A- 3 anct A-4 - Trial court convicting A-1 to A-7 of all the charges o -A-'1, A-3 and A-4 sentenced to death and A-2, A-5, A-6 and A-7 sentenced to life imprisonment - Rest of the accused acql!1tted - High Court acquitting all the accused u/ss. 147 and 3(}21149, acquitting A-2, A-3 and A-4 u/s. 3021109, and convicting A-1 uls. 3021109 - A-1 sentenced to life E imprisonment - Appeal by A-1 against conviction and by the State against acquittal order and against the order reducing sentence of A-1 - Held: Prosecution case against A-1 supporteo by prosecution witness - High Court rightly acquitted A-1 to A-7 uls. 3021149 rejecting the prosecution F case that there was unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased - The majority of the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case that A-2, A-3 and A-4 exhorted the shooter while supported the case that A-1 exhorted the shooter - A-1 also not able to prove that he was not at the place of occurrence, the burden to prove which was G on him - He did not take such plea uls. 313 Cr.P.C. - Therefore, A-2 to A-4 rightly acquitted uls. 3021109 and A-1 rightly convicted thereunder - As the District Magistrate was 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A killed as an occupant of a car by chance, on account of mob fury and since the accused was not the assailant himself, RI for life is appropriate - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 103. 8 Evidence - Evidence of exhortation, is a weak piece of evidence - Therefore, unless the evidence in this regard is clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction for abetment can be recorded - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 109. 36 accused including the appellants-accused No. 1, C were prosecuted u/ss. 147, 3021149, 307/149, 302/109. The prosecution case was that 'C' a political leader was murdered by certain unknown criminals. His funeral procession was led by A-1 (an MLA), A-2 (an M.P), A-3 and few others in their respective vehicles. A-1, A-2 and A-3 D had given speeches instigating the crowd to take revenge of the murder and teach the administration a lesson. When the procession moved further, the shouts 'Maro Maro' were heard from the midst of the procession. When the informant (a police official on duty) reached there, E found that car of the District Magistrate of some other district had turned turtle and the District Magistrate was lying on the ground. A-1, A-2, A-3 and some others were there provoking 'B' the brother of 'C' to kill the Magistrate and take revenge. 'B' fired at the Magistrate and fled F away. The Magistrate succumbed to the injuries, in the Hospital. In the meantime 15 persons, including A-1 and A-2 were arrested. The informant had sent information about the incident through wireless, soon after the incident. The informant later sent a typed report about the G incident which was lodged as FIR. H Trial Court convicted A-1 to A-7 u/ss. 147, 302/149, 307/149 and 327/149 IPC; further convicted A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 u/s. 302/109 IPC, and rest of the accused were acquitted of all the charges. A-1, A-3 and A-4 were ANAND MOHAN v. STATE OF BIHAR 3 sentenced to death. A-2, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were sentenced A to life imprisonment. High Court held that the prosecution was not able to establish a case of unlawful assembly with common object of causing death of the deceased, hence none of 8 the accused is liable to be convicted u/ss. 147 and 302/ 149; that A-1 alone was responsible for exhorting the lone shooter to kill the deceased and hence, he alone was guilty of the offence u/s. 302/109 IPC. However, the court sentenced A-1 to R1 for life. Hence the present appeals by A-1 against his conviction, and by the State against C the acquittal of A-2 to A-7 and against conversion of death sentence of A-1 to life imprisonment. The appellant-accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.