CHANDUBHAI MALUBHAI PARMAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 04-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE

Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDUBHAI MALUBHAI PARMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
APRIL 4, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.) 
Criminal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302/ 149/34/ 147/148, 3251149, 323/ 149 and 
436/149. 
Group rivalry-Riotous mob of 100/ 150 persons attacked members of 
a community and caused death of 4 persons and injuries to 13 eyewit-
ness-Some members of mob ransacked houses and set them afire-Held : 
A 
B 
c 
Presence of Injured eyewitnesses at the scene of incident could not be 
doubted-Their evidence reliable-OccwTence took place during day time and 
the accused known to wit111::sses-Hence, there was no question of mistaken D 
identity-Jn the cirwmstances of the case, the accused were 1ightly convicted 
by the trial court. 
Common intention or object-lnference of sharing of-Time fac-
tor-Riotous mob chased the deceased and other injured persons of a com-
munity from bus stand till they reached their village-Wizen the mob reached E 
near the village three of the accused went to the house of one of the witnesses 
and set his house on fire-Other members of mob continued the said 
chase-Thereafter, witnesses heard firing sounds coming from that 
direction--Held: fa the circumstances of the case, the said three accused 
could not be said to have shared the common object of Committing F 
murder with other accused who caused death of 4 persons by using fireanns 
and other deadly weapons-In such circumstances time factor assumed 
impo1tance-Co11viction of the three accused could not be sustained with the 
aid of S. 149 or S. 34--1heir conviction under S. 302/ 149 set aside-However, 
conviction under S. 436/34 confimicd. 
The appellant-accused were convicted by the Designated Court for 
offences under Sections 302/149/34/147/148, 325/149, 323/149 and 436/149 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, a dispute arose over the allotment of 
G 
the land to Vankars for which the Harijans laid a claim under· the belief H 
633 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A that it was reserved and earmarked for them. Some of the Vankars had 
constructed the houses on this land, which was 11bjected to by Harijans. 
Some of the Harijans went to the disputed land and questioned the right 
ofVankars to carry on the construction of house thereon. There was some 
altercation between the two group and a riotous mob consisting of 100/150 
B 
persons started chasing Vankars from the bus stand until they reached 
their village causing death of 4 persons and injuries to 13 eyewitnesses. 
When the mob reached near the village A-34, A-35 and A-36 went to the 
house of one of the witness, set his house on fire ancl other members of the 
mob continued to chase the Vankars. Thereafter, the witnesses heard firing 
sounds coming from that direction. Some members of the mob also ran· 
C sacked the houses of the Vankars and set 3 houses on fire. The entire 
incident took place during the daytime. A First Information Report was 
lodged and a post-mortem held. 
D 
E 
In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the accused persons it 
was contended that the riotous mob consisted of 100/150 persons and if· 
this be so, mistaken identity of the accused persons could not be ruled out; 
that the prosecution evidence was not reliable and that accused Nos. 34, 
35 and 36 did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly and, 
therefore, they could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34 or Section 
149 of the Penal Code. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It cannot be ignored that the occurrence in question took 
place during daytime and in fact the appellants were chasing the deceased 
and other injured persons right from the bus stand till they reached the 
F village where two persons were shot down and two were assaulted wi.th 
lethal weapons. The presence of the injured eyewitnesses at the scene of 
incident cannot be doubted. Their evidence is reliable. The witnesses had 
sufficient opportunity to identify the appellants and they also knew them. 
Hence there is no question of mistaken identify. The trial court therefore, 
G rightly convicted the appellants. [643-D-H] 
1.2. On the evidence on record, it cannot be said to be conclusively 
established that A-34, A-35 and A-36 also shared the common object of 
committing the murder with other accused who had caused the death of 4 
persons by using firearms and other deadly weapons. The time factor in 
H this behalf assumes great i

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