LexBHARAT SONI ETC. versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 541 BHARAT SONI ETC. v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1262-1264 of 2010 etc.) NOVEMBER 22, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 147, 148 and 3021149 - Murder by seven accused - c Conviction by courts below - Held: Evidence of one eye- witness was self-contradictory and also at variance with the evidence of the other eye-witness - No convincing and consistent evidence regarding individual overt act - Recovery of weapons and fleeing of the accused from the place of 0 occurrence would not be determinative of the liability of the accused uls. 3021149 - It cannot be infe"ed that the accused had common object to murder - Thus, accused-appellants acquitted of offences punishable uls. 3021149 - However, conviction uls. 147 and 148 maintained. s. 149 - Common object - Determination of - Held: It is a question of fact - Has to be determined keeping in view nature of assembly, arms carried, behaviour of the members etc. E Words and Phrases - 'Common Object' - Meaning of, in F the context of s. 149 /PC. The appellants (4 accused) and 3 other accused allegedly caused death of one person. The prosecution case was that two of the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased, PW-4 and PW 13, at which the deceased G and PW 4 slapped one of the accused. Both the accused went away, threatening them. After an hour they came back with other accused and assaulted the deceased and his companions. The deceased succumbed to the 541 H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A injuries. The trial court convicted all the accused u/ss. 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC. The High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. B Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Determination of the common object of an unlawful assembly or the determination of the question whether a member of the unlawful assembly knew that the offence that was committed was likely to be committed is essentially a question of fact that has to be C made keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene and a host of similar or connected facts and circumstances that cannot be entrapped by any attempt at an exhaustive enumeration. D [Para 15) [549-H; 550-A-B] Dani Singh vs. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC; Ku/dip Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 324: 2011 (5) SCR 186; Rajendra Shantaram Todankar vs. State of Maharashtra E (2003) 2 sec 257: 2003 (1) SCR 10 - relied on. 2.1 The versions of the two eye-witnesses i.e. PW 4 and PW 13 in so far as the involvement of the accused- appellants is concerned, are at variance with each other. Besides the testimony of PW-4 is self-contradictory. F Insofar as accused 'R' is concerned, he has hardly been implicated and the prosecution evidence, properly read, would seem to show that he was a mere passive onlooker. Also, PW-13 is wholly silent with regard to the involvement of any of the four accused-appellants before G this Court. [Para 22) [553-B-C) 2.2 If the oral evidence of PW-4 and PW-13 is to be excluded, the recovery of the alleged weapons at the instance of the accused, and the incident of the accused H fleeing away from the place of occurrence, will not be BHARAT SONI ETC. v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH 543 conclusive and determinative of the liability of the A accused for the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. [Para 22] [553-D-E] 2.3 There is no convincing and consistent evidence of any individual overt act on the part of any of the 8 accused-appellants to implicate any or all of them for causing the fatal injuries on the body of the deceased. In view of the prosecution evidence, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the accused- appellants, as members of an unlawful assembly, had any common object to commit the offence of murder of the deceased. C Neither, the accused can be attributed with the knowledge that the offence of murder was likely to be caused or to occur in prosecution of the common object. [Para 22] [553-E-G] 2.4 At best what can be held is that the common object of the assembly of the accused was to teach P\'V- D 4 and the deceased a lesson on account of the previous altercation that had taken place in the course of which PW-4 and the deceased had slapped one of the accused. E The accused persons, including the appellants, as members of the unl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.