LexBHARWAD JAKSHIBHAI NAGJIBHAI AND ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHARWAD JAKSHIBHAI NAGJIBHAI AND ORS. ETC. A v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. AUGUST 24, 1995 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, .JJ.) B Oiminal Law. Indian Penal Code, 1860.-5.324 and S.326 read with S.149; S. 302 read with S.149-Unlawful assembly-Group livaby-Clash-one killed and C two assaulted-JS accused and brought to t1iat--Trial Cowt acquitted all-High Cowt reversed findi11g in respect of 7-Reversal of acquittal by High Cowt-Not nonnal when two views of evide11ce possible-Pennissible whe11 approach of Tlial Co wt is ma11if estly in en-or i11 appreciation of evidence. S. 149 I.P.C., 186(}-Applies not only to offe11ces actually committed D in pursua11ce of common object but also to offences which the unlawful assembly knew were likely to be committed. !11dicia to asce1tain Commo11 object-Nature, munber and location of injwies indicia to asce1tain-Use of the weapon-Use of blunt and not sha1p E edge shows object 11ot murder but to cause grevious /nut. The relationship between the Bhanvad and Patel communities be- came strained after the Bavla Nagar Panchayat elections. On 2nd June, 81, at about 6 P.M., 40-50 members of Bhanvad community armed \\ith sticks, dharias and farsis attacked 3 members of the Patel community F killing one and injuring 2. One of the injured lodged a complaint mth the police and a case was registered. 15 were brought to trial. Before the Trial Court evidence of the injured, eye mtnesses, doctors etc. were examined. The Trial Court appraised the evidence by treating the assault on the three members as distinct and unconnected, relied on minor discrepencies and G discounting evidence of eye witnesses acquitted all the 15. The High Court admitted the Appeal against only 7 of the accused and discharged the rest. The High court accepted the prosecution case that successive assaults on the 3 persons were part of the same transaction and outcome of a common object and not isolated incidents as held by Trial H 23 A B c 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. Court. On reappreciation of evidence the High Court came to the finding that there was unlawful assembly; that the 7 accused formed part of that assembly; their common object was not murder but causing grevious injury, taking into consideration the nature of the injury and evidence of witnesses; that the Trial Court departed from the basic principles of appreciation of evidence of eye witnesses. The Court therefore set out the principles for appreciation of evidence of particularly injured eye-wit- nesses as enunciated by this court in various judgments, considered the evidence on that basis. TM High Court then convicted all the 7, under S.148 and S.326 I.P.C. read with S.149 I.P.C. and some under s.324 and s.326 I.P.C. Simpliciter and rest under S.149 I.P.C. Against the order of the High Court 2 Appeals were filed before this Court-one by the 7 convicted persons and the other by the injured who had lodged the police complaint. On behalf of the accused Appellants it was argued that merely because the High Court took a different view; it cannot set aside the aquittal; the conviction under S.326 I.P.C. Simpliciter or with D S.149 was not justified because evidence shows that common object was only to cause simple hurt and the accused carried only Iatis; that since already 14 years had lapsed and 10 months imprisonment had been served, sentence be altered. On behalf of the other appellant it was submitted that conviction should have been under S.302 read with S.149 I.P.C., that facts E showed that the object of the unlawful assembly was murder; the sentence was inadequate and should be enhanced. Dismissing the Appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The finding of the High court that the 7 accused Appel- F Ian ts were members of an unlawful assembly which caused injuries to three members of the Patel community is unassailable. This court has carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. (30-F-G] Appablzai v. State of Gujarat AIR (1988) SC 696; Bhoginblzai Hiljibhai G v. State of Gujarat AIR (1983) SC 753; Sohrab v. State of M.P., AIR (1972) SC 2020 and State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR (1988) SC 1998, referred to. 2. The nature, number and location of injuries are some of the indicia to ascertain the common object and for that matter the offences committed. According to both the doctors, the injuries found on the person H of the deceased were possible by hard and blunt subst
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.