HARI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 26-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
   [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1022
HARI & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 26, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA
AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 147, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 201/149 – Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
– s. 3(3)(10) – Matter pertaining to honour killing – Jat girl wanted
to marry Jatav boy which infuriated the Jat community – Jat girl
and Jatav boy along with another Jatav boy who accompanied them,
physically assaulted for 12 hours and killed by accused for violating
caste-ridden societal norms – 54 persons charged – Trial court
convicted 35 persons for the commission of offences u/ss. 147, 302/
149, 323/149, 324/149 and 201/149 and s. 3(3)(10) of the SC/ST
Act and imposed death sentence on eight of them – However, the
High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment – On
appeal, held: From the evidence of four eye-witnesses, the medical
and scientific evidence, and documentary evidence it is proved that
the youngsters were tortured, then killed by hanging and thereafter,
their bodies were cremated – Testimonies of the four eye-witnesses
are credible – Inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence
are trivial – Eye-witnesses’ account stating about the involvement
of the accused and ascribed specific overt acts to some of them,
believed by the courts below – As regards those, not assigned any
active role or overt act, there is no doubt that they shared the common
object to punish the victims and kill them – Their presence in the
Panchayat continuously for nearly 12 hours without any protest
lends support to the prosecution version – Relevant portion of the
testimony of the hostile witness rightly relied upon by the High Court
– Informant not able to mention all the names of those involved due
to the trauma of witnessing an egregious crime, is accepted –
Recovery of clothes of deceased, recovery of half burnt body remains
support the prosecution’s version about the burning of the bodies
of the victim – Thus, the murder established beyond doubt – Courts
1022
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1023
below committed no error in convicting the accused u/s. 302 with
the aid of s. 149 – Entire incident squarely falls under the head of
anti-social and abhorrent nature of the crime – Thus, order passed
by the High Court is upheld, except for three who are acquitted in
view of the ambiguity in their identity – Evidence – Witnesses.
s. 149 – Unlawful assembly – Vicarious liability u/s. 149 –
Held: s. 149 is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members
of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly or for such offences which the members
knew would be committed in prosecution of that object – Prosecution
need not prove each of the members’ involvement especially
regarding which or what act – While overt act and active
participation may indicate common intention of the person
perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly
may fasten vicariously criminal liability u/s. 149.
s. 149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object of an assembly
– Held: Common object is different from common intention as it
does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds
before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view
and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to
achieve that object – Common object of an assembly is to be
ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing
it, from the surrounding circumstances and the course of conduct
adopted by the members.
Witnesses:
Hostile witness – Evidentiary value – Held: Part of the
evidence of the hostile witness which is creditworthy, can be acted
upon – Criminal trial.
Protection of – Implementation of Witness Protection Scheme
– Need to formulate scheme/guidelines/programmes to safeguard
rights of the witnesses.
Constitution of India:
Art. 136 – Interference by this Court in a criminal appeal by
a Special Leave – Governing principles – Stated.
Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 21 – Right to life – Right to life
guaranteed to the people also includes in its fold the right to live in
HARI & ANR. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
a society which is free from crime and fear, and the right of witnesses
to testify in courts in free and fair manner without fear or pr

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