LexDEV KARAN @ LAMBU versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R. DEV KARAN @ LAMBU v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2010) AUGUST 06, 2019 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148, 302, 307, 325 r/w. s.149 and s.449 – Murder – Complainant case was that seven persons (all accused) entered the under-construction house of the victim- deceased armed with deadly weapons and attacked the victim – All the accused hit the victim indiscriminately with their respective weapons – Consequent to which victim died – PW-7,8 also received injuries – FIR was registered – Trial Court convicted all the six accused persons u/ss. 148, 302, 307, 325 r/w. 149 IPC and s.449 IPC – One accused person (A-1) died during the Trial – High Court dismissed the appeals – Against the order of the High Court, A-2 and A-7 did not prefer appeal, however, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 preferred appeals before the Supreme Court – A-4 and A-6 contended that since no charges were framed u/s. 141 IPC, the unlawful assembly did not exist and therefore, s.149 IPC could not have been invoked – A-5, inter alia, made a plea of mistaken identity – Held: It has nowhere been said in the judicial pronouncements that s.141 IPC should be specifically invoked or else consequences would be fatal – As long as the necessary ingredients of an unlawful assembly are set out and proved, as enunciated in s. 141 IPC, it would suffice – The actions of an unlawful assembly and the punishments thereafter are set out in the subsequent provisions, after s.141 IPC, and as long as those ingredients are met, s. 149 IPC can be invoked – In the instant case, the A-1 (since deceased) not only inflicted a blow with a bahi, but also raised a lalkar that the deceased should be killed – All other accused also inflicted blows on the deceased – The common object was, thus, writ large on its face – Both the Courts below have found that version given by PW-7 and 8 evoked confidence, who were themselves injured in the incident – Insofar A-5 is concerned, PW-8 had identified him and all the other accused – Further, A-3, A-4, A-5 were arrested on the same day and 40 [2019] 11 S.C.R. 40 A B C D E F G H 41 recovery of weapons was also made due to disclosure statement of A-5 – Thus, plea of mistaken identity cannot be accepted – All four appeals by the accused dismissed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. This Court is unable to come to a conclusion that there was any fatal flaw in the non-inclusion of Section 141 of the IPC while framing charges, as would render the complete trial illegal, or that it can result in a finding that there would be no occasion to invoke Section 149 of the IPC. A-4 and A-6 appears not to have appreciated the judicial pronouncements in the correct perspective, as what is necessary for invoking Section 149 of the IPC has been set out in these judgments. It has nowhere been said that Section 141 of the IPC should be specifically invoked or else the consequences would be fatal. As long as the necessary ingredients of an unlawful assembly are set out and proved, as enunciated in Section 141 of the IPC, it would suffice. The actions of an unlawful assembly and the punishment thereafter are set out in the subsequent provisions, after Section 141 of the IPC, and as long as those ingredients are met, Section 149 of the IPC can be invoked. [Para 21] [52-F-G; 53-A] 2. In the factual context, it is observed that whatever be the altercation or argument between a friend of deceased and the seven accused, it resulted in the seven accused armed with deadly weapons coming to the site of the incident, being the under- construction house of the deceased, and all of them inflicting blows on the deceased. Accused no.1, since deceased, not only inflicted a blow with a bahi, but also raised a lalkar that the deceased should be killed. All the other accused also inflicted blows on the deceased. Even the interventions of PW-7 & PW-8 did not result in their desisting from such assault, but on the other hand, even PW-7 and PW-8 received injuries as a result thereof. This is not a case where the common assembly proceeded to the site and subsequently decided to inflict the blows. It is not as if anyone incidentally joined the group, but all of them came together with a clear intent and acted upon that intent. It was not as if any of the accused ran away from the site, or ceased to have the intent to inflict blows, which resulted in the death of the decea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.