LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

BHUDEO MANDAL & OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 24-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
.. ยฅ"' 
.... 
BHUDEO MANDAL & OTHERS 
V. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
March 24, 1981 
[S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI, BAHARUL !SLAM, AND 
A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.) 
291 
Indian Penal Code 1860-S. 149ยท-Conviction under clear finding regarding 
common object of assembly-Necessity of. 
When the appellants wanted to irrigate the land they were prevented from 
doing so by the deceased as a result of which the !st appellant who is now dead 
gave a bhala blow to the deceased. The other appellants were supposed to have 
been armed with lathis but they did not cause any injuries either to the witnesses 
or to the deceased. 
The Sessions Judge convicted the l st appellant under section 304 Part I of 
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and 
the other appellants under section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code and senten-
ced them to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment but affirmed the acquittal of 
the individual charges under sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. The High Court while 
convicting the appellant under sections 325/149 of the I.P.C. has given no finding 
regarding the common object of the unlawful assembly. 
Accepting the appeal, the Court 
HELD : In the instant case, there is neither any evidence nor any finding 
that any of the ingredients of section 149 have been established by the prosecu-
tion. Even on the prosecution case itself the occurrence took place as a result 
of an inigation dispute and the appellants were merely acting under aยท bona fide 
claim or belief that they had the right to irrigate the land. There is no overt act 
attributed to any of the appellants in regard to the deceased and the mere fact 
that the appellants were armed with lathis by itself would not prove that they 
shared the common object with which the deceased was inspired. [292 G-H] 
2. Before the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under 
sections 326/149 I.P.C. it should have recorded a clear finding as to what was the 
object of the unlawful assembly and if so whether the object was to commit 
murder, grievous hurt or simple hurt. [293 A] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
3. Whenever the High Court convicts any person or persons of an 
H 
offence with the aid of section 149 a clear finding regarding the common 
object of the assembly must be given and 
the evidence discussed must 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORT 
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 
show not only the nature of the common object but also that the object was un-
lawful. Before recording a conviction under section 149 of the l.P.C. the essen-
tial ingredients of section 141 of the I.P.C. must be established. [293 DJ 
I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No. 
365 of 1974. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
24.1.1974 of the Patna High Court at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 
306/ I 969. 
U. P. Singh for the Appellants. 
K. G. Bhaget and U. N. Prasad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL Au, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the Patna High Court dated 24.1.1974 and has been pre-
ferred by appellants Dayanand Manda!, Bhubneshwar Manda!, Kuldip 
Manda!, Bhagwat Mandal, Nemo Manda!, and Udin Yadav. 
The 
occurrence seems to have arisen out of an irrigation dispute. Accord-
ing to the prosecution case the appellants wanted to irrigate the land 
and when they were prevented from doing so, Mainu Manda! resisted 
as a result of which Bhudeo Manda! who is now dead gave a bhala 
blow to the deceased Mainu Manda!. 
So far as the other appellants 
are concerned, they are supposed to have been armed With laihis 
but they did not cause any injuries either to the witnesses or to the 
deceased. The Sessions Judge had convicted the accused Bhudeo Man-
da! under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced 
him to undergo imprisonment for life and the other appellants under 
section 326/I 49 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to 3 
years rigorous imprisonment but affirmed the acquittal of the accused 
of the individual charges under sections 323 and 325 of the Indian 
l'enal Code by the Sessions Judge. 
We have gone through the 
judgment of the High Court which while convicting the appellant 
under section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code has given no finding 
regarding the common object of the unlawful assembly. 
Even on 
the prosecution case itself the occurrence took place as a result of 
an irrigati~n dispute and the appellants were merely acting

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.