LexBHIMA @ BHIMARAO SIDA KAMBLE AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHIMA @ BHIMARAO SIDA KAMBLE AND ORS. A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AUGUST 27, 2002 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATAR.AMA REDDI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860; Sections 147, 149, 302, 323, 325 and 440: Unlawful assembly-Charges of murder and causing injury-Nature of offence committed-large number of accused gathered armed with sticks and C pelting stones, resulting in death of one and injury to another-Held, under the circumstances, reasonable inference drawn could be that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 1471149 and not under Section 302 read with Section 149. 22 persons were charged for offence of formation of unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of the victim/ deceased, causing injury to another victim and damaging property. Trial Court convicted most of these accused under Section 302 read with Section D 149 and Section 440 read with Section 149 IPC and accused Nos.14, 18 E and 19 were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. High Court acquitted some of the accused but confirmed the conviction against others. Hence this appeal filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3, 14 and 29, in which Court granted leave confining it only to the question of the nature of offence disclosed. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. When a large number of persons were armed only with sticks or pelted stones which they could find anywhere either near the fields F or on their way and it was not established as to who specifically attacked whom, it cannot be said that the intention was to cause death. It is more G probable that the intention was to give hard beating only. Even if it is presumed that the deceased was pursued by the accused persons right upto the place of incident, the object of the mob·was to teach him a stern lesson as he was a bully in the village. In the circumstances and in the light of evidence, reasonable inference to be drawn is that the common object was 693 H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R. A to commit offences under Section 323 and Section 325 read with Section 1471149 IPC and not under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. [696-D-F) 2. The trial Court as well as High Court appears to have lost sight of the crucial aspects. These accused are acquitted of the charges under B Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, while they stand convicted, as rightly held by the trial Court, under Section 147, Section 323 and Section 325 IPC. The sentences which they have already undergone should be treated as sufficient punishment and they may be released forthwith. c (696-F, G) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 24/25-6-93 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. Appeal No. l 036 of 1980 D A. T.M. Rangaramanujam, Mrs. Gouri Karuna Das, Mrs. Archana Singh E and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the Appellants. V.B. Joshi, Naresh Kumar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J . 22 persons were. charged by the Court of Session, Solapur on the allegation that they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering vithal and causing injury to Bhimrao, the brother of Vithal, and to cause damage to the 'wada' at Dambaldar. After trial most of them stood convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 F and Section 440 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and accused Nos. 14, 18 and 19 were also charged and convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for having caused simple hurt to Bhimrao. On appeal, the High C_ourt acquitted some more accused but confirmed the conviction and sentence in regard to others. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 14 to 19 are in appeal before us. We are not concerned with other accused. G This Court granted leave by an order made on 18-7-1994 confining the same only to the question of the nature of offences disclosed. When the learned Senior Advocate Shri A. T.M. Rangaramanujam pitched his arguments a little too high to contend that the accused are entitled to plain acquittal, we made it clear to him that when the trial court and the High Court on the basis H of evidence have come to a conclusion one way or the other of their BHIMA@BHIMARAO SIDA KAMBLE v. STATE [S. RAIENDRA BABU, l.] 695 involvement in the incident in respect of which they were charged, we cannot A re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.