DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 478-479  of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.149 and s.147, 148, 323,
342, 450 – FIR lodged by Informant-PW-2 that his cousin was fatally
assaulted – 17 persons including the appellants were tried for the
offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 323, 342 & 450 and u/s.302 r/
w.149, IPC – Found guilty by the Trial Court – High Court in appeals
by all the accused persons affirmed the view taken by the Trial
Court – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.457-458 of 2016 filed by
9 accused before Supreme Court wherein no ground was found for
interference with respect to 5 petitioners – As regards the present
appellants (four accused persons), held: In a crime committed by
an unlawful assembly, by principle of vicarious liability, every
member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of the offence,
even if he himself had not done the actual act – But the facts must
indicate with clarity that such person was in fact member of the
unlawful assembly – Prosecution did not allege that any of the
appellants had stormed inside the house and had dragged PW-2’s
cousin – Their presence, at best, going by the version of PWs 2 and
4 (deceased’s  son) was outside the house in the street where 25-30
persons had gathered – Out of such gathering, 17 persons were
named to be accused and sent for trial – PW-2 in his FIR had not
named any of the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the
names of the appellants did occur, however even then he did not
attribute any overt act to the appellants – PW-3 (deceased’s widow)
also did not name any of the appellants – Evidence of PW-4 did
indicate some role but that part of the assertion is to be seen in the
light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by PW-3 as
soon as the first part of the transaction occurred and some 7 persons
stormed inside the house – This is perhaps why PW-3 also could not
name any of the appellants – Not established beyond reasonable
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 247
247
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which
they were tried – Benefit of doubt granted to the appellants –
Acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  In a crime committed by an unlawful assembly
by principle of vicarious liability, every member of the unlawful
assembly would be guilty of the offence, even if he himself had
not done the actual act. But the facts must indicate with clarity
that such person was in fact a member of the unlawful assembly.
The prosecution did not allege that any of the appellants had
stormed inside the house and had dragged the deceased Parasram.
The presence of the appellant, at best, going by the version of
PWs 2 and 4 was outside the house in the street where 25-30
persons had gathered.  Out of such gathering, 17 persons were
named to be accused and sent up for trial. It is crucial to note
that PW-2 in his First Information Report had not named any of
the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the names of
the appellants did occur in his testimony. Even then he did not
attribute any overt act to the appellants. PW-3  also did not name
any of the appellants.  The evidence of PW-4 did indicate some
role but that part of the assertion is required to be seen in the
light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by their mother
as soon as the first part of the transaction had occurred and some
7 persons had stormed inside the house.  This is perhaps why
the mother also could not name any of the appellants.
[Paras 10, 11][252-H; 253-A-D]
1.2  It is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellants were guilty of the offences with which they were tried.
Therefore, benefit of doubt granted to the appellants. The
appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
[Para 12][253-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 478-479 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2015 of the High Court
of  Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos.410 of 2000 and 698
of 2000.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
Ajit Sharma(AC), Navin Prakash, Meetu Singh, Anshuman
Shrivastava, Abhijeet Shrivastava, B. Ramana Murthy, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandrajog, Ashish Tiwari, Suryakamal
Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Ju

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