CHANDRA BIHARI GAUTAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1164 · Decided: 15-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRA BIHARI GAUTAM AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
APRIL 15, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s.302 rlws.149-Murder-Common object-Accused 
persons attacked house of the informant night armed with deadly weapons 
c including gims and petrol bombs-Leading to killing of six persons in the 
family-Conviction-Courts below holding that accused persons committed 
offence in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly-On appeal, 
held prosecution establishing the existence of common object of unlawful 
assembly amongst accused persons thus Section 149 applicable-However, 
mere fact that no overt act attributed to the accused persons does not render 
D Section 149 inapplicable. 
Evidence Act, 1872~ Testimony of related witnesses-Reliance on-Held, 
such testimony is reliable.· 
Constitution of India, Article 136-Concurrent finding of fact-
E Interference with-Held, is permissible only in exceptional cases when there 
is some manifest illegality or irregularity. 
Appellants-accused persons apprehending one 'N' attacked the house 
of the informant at the dead of the night armed with deadly weapons including 
F 
guns and petrol bombs. One of the members of the family died and five were 
burnt alive inside the room where they were hiding. Motive was enmity of 
one of the accused with the family of the informant Informant identified 19 
persons including appellant out of the mob of 300-400 persons. FIR was 
lodged. Prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Trial Court 
convicted two of them under Section 302 and others under Section 302 read 
G with 149 IPC. Aggrieved, accused filed appeals which were disposed of. Courts 
below held that the accused persons committed murder of six family members 
in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly. Hence the present 
appeals. 
In appeals before this Court appellants contended that the prosecution 
H 
1164 
....._ 
..... 
> 
~ 
,'t': __ 
~ 
,. 
I L
L 
.. 
.__ 
I 
.T 
... ~
......--
,be
·"]
I 
l r 
CHANDRA BIHARI GAUTAM v. STATE OF BIHAR 
1165 
. had failed to prove the presence of all the appellants and the existence of A 
common object within the meaning of Section 149 of the Penal Code. It 
submitted that even ifthe appellants were proved to be present on spot when 
the occurrence took place they cannot be held guilty for the commission of 
any offences as they were not proved to be sharing any common object but 
were only by-standers. Further the prosecution witnesses being interested were 
not reliable and the courts below wrongly relied upon their testimony to B 
convict and sentence the appellants. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The submission that the prosecution had failed to allege and C 
prove a specified object on the part of the appellants, thus they cannot be 
held to be guilty for the commission of the offence with the aid of Section 149 
of the Penal Code cannot be accepted in view of the settled position of law 
that every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed 
in prosecution of the common object. [1170-F) 
D 
1.2. Even if the common object of the unlawful assembly is stated to be 
apprehending 'N' only, the fact that the accused persons bad attacked the 
house of the complainant at the dead of the night and were armed with deadly 
weapons including the guns, and used petrol bombs proves beyond doubt that 
they knew that in prosecution of the alleged initial common object murders 
were likely to be committed. The knowledge of the consequential action in E 
furtherance of the initial common object is sufficient to attract the applicability 
of Section 149 for holding the members of the unlawful assembly guilty for 
the commission of the offence by any member of such assembly. In the instant 
case the appellants, along with others, have been proved to have formed 
unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder and F 
arson and in prosecution of the said common object they raided tbe house of 
the informant armed with guns and committed offence. The courts below have, 
therefore, rightly held that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, 
the common object of which was to commit murder of the informant and his 
family members and in prosecution of the said common object six persons 
were killed. The appellants were also proved to have hired the services of some G 
extremists for the purposes of eliminating the family of the complainants. 

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