LexANUP LAL YADAV & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 689 ANUP LAL YADAV & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 26, 2014. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 - Previous enmity between two factions - Mob of about 300-400 persons led by appellant no. 1 and other accused attacked ruthlessly persons C of other faction killing 14 persons, burning 47 houses and -injuring large number of persons - Conviction ulss.3021149 - Held: Evidence of eye witnesses was trustworthy and inspired confidence - There was no denial on part of accused as to their participation in the atrocities - Appellants were part o of the unlawful assembly sharing the common object of the offence committed - Once it is established that unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act rather they can be convicted E u/s. 149 - No interference with the conviction order. Dismissing the appeals, the Court Held: 1. The facts and circumstances of the case showed that the huge mob was led and instigated by the F appellant and other accused who had actively participated in the carnage and slaughtered innocent villagers with deadly weapons. There was no denial on the part of the accused as to their participation in the atrocities. In such circumstances, the Court cannot G ignore the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution witnesses who categorically described the role played by the accused. The plea of the accused/appellants cannot be accepted that the accused were merely passive 689 H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A onlookers who joined the mob out of curiosity and they had no common intention and did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly. The appellants were part of the unlawful assembly sharing the common object of killing, rioting and looting the villagers. Each one of the B accused played an active role in furtherance of the common object of the assembly and the Courts below were perfectly right in convicting the accused/appellants under Section 149, IPC. Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not c necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted under Section 149, IPC. [Paras 15, 20, 21] [699-E-G; 702-D-H; 703-A] Yunis v. State of M.P. (2003) 1 SCC 425; State of D Rajasthan v. Shiv Charan (2013) 12 SCC 76: 2013 (8) SCR 336; Lalji v. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437: 1989 (1) SCR 130; Suba/ Ghorai v. State of W.B. (2013) 4 SCC 607 . - relied on. E Bhudeo Manda/ & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 755: 1981 (3) SCR 291; Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 3 SCC 727:1975 (3) SCR 463; Ku/dip Yadav v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 324: 2011 (5) SCR 186; Shaji v. State of Kera/a (2011) 5 SCC 423: 2011 F (6) SCR 210; Badal Murmu v. State of WB. (2014) 3 SCC 366: 2014 (2) SCR 323; State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 554: 1998 (3) SCR 1088 - referred to. Case Law Reference: G 1981 (3) SCR 291 referred to Para 10 1975 (3) SCR 463 referred to Para 10 2011 (5) SCR 186 referred to Para 10 2011 (6) SCR 210 referred to Para 10 H 2014 (2) SCR 323 referred to Para 10 ANUP LAL YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR 691 1998 (3) SCR 1088 referred to Para 13 (2003) 1 sec 425 relied on Para 13 2013 (8) SCR 336 relied on Para 13, 19 1989 (1) SCR 130 relied on Para 16 (2003) 1 sec 425 relied on Para 17 (2013) 4 sec 607 relied on Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 23.11.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 1993(08). WITH Crl. A. No. 1163 of 2007. T. Mahipal, Prem Sunder Jha for the Appellants. A B c D Gopal Singh, Prerna Singh for the Respondent. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. These appeals are preferred by the appellants/accused aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature F at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 1993 whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, Bihar in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1978 under Sections 302/149, 436/149, 380/149, 323/ 149, 145 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code against them. G
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.