LexINDER SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 563 INDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal Nos. 493-495 of 2009) JANUARY 06, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, ;J.l Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149, 3071149, 147 and 148 A B - Four persons died on account of assault - Complainant seriously injured in the occurrence - 29 accused - Conviction C of 21 appellants - Challenged - .1-feld: Consistent deposition of 6 eye witnesses to support prosecution version - Accused persons chased, surrounded and caused death of 4 pers9ns which showed their common object to commit crime - Courts below rightly convicted the members of unlawful assembly for D offence u/ss. 302 and 307 with the aid of s. 149. Disposing of the appeals, the court HELD: 1. Since the number of accused persons was quite large and they were bold and strong enough to cause four deaths in the open field in presence of large number of persons, it cannot be difficult to understand E F as to why independent witnesses from the village who might have seen the occurrence, did not prefer to come out to support the prosecution. But that will not take away from the worth of deposition of six eye witnesses when they have given a consistent account of the occurrence which was disclosed in a nutshell soon after the occurrence in the FIR lodged by P.W.15 who was seriously and critically injured in the same occurrence G and whose presence cannot be doubted. The eye version account of the occurrence and the medical evidence showing large number of injuries including firearm 563 H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A in1uries supported each other. On this issue, the discussion and findings of the trial court against the accused persons is found to have sufficient merit. The criticism that some of the accused had sustained injuries for which the prosecution has not offered any explanation B was rightly rejected by the trial court because there was no counter version or even a suggestion disclosing that any of the accused had received injuries in the same occurrence and at the same place. Only if these two inqredients were established, the defence would have c been entitled to seek an explanation from the prosecution in respect of some injuries on three of the accused persons. Their injuries were neither fatal nor they caused any threat to life and that also reduces the burden upon the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused. [Paras D 12, 13] [573-G-H; 574-8-E; 575-A] E F G H Siri Kishan & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2009) 12 SCC 757: 2009 (6) SCR 1184; Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 - Distinguished. Khairuddin & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2013) 5 SCC 753: 2013 (3) SCR 478 - held inapplicable. Whether the courts below have rightly applied Section 149 of the IPC against the appellants for convicting them for the death of four persons and for murderous assault on the informant? 2. As per Section 149, even if any one member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of that offence. The group of persons who chased deceased no.1 and caused his death and thereafter chased, surrounded and caused death of three more persons besides causing INDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 565 grievous injuries to the informant was an assembly of five A or more persons rightfully deserving to be designated as an unlawful assembly because by its action it showed that its common object was to commit offence. The subsequent acts clearly showed that the unlawful assembly carried out its common object of committing B serious offence of murder of four persons and grievous injuries to the informant. The courts below committed no error in applying Section 149, IPC and convicting the members of the unlawful assembly for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC (with the aid of Section c 149 IPC). [Paras 14, 17, 19 and 20] [576-F-G; 577-D-F] Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 221: 2012 (1) SCR 477; Ramchandran & Ors. v. State of Kera/a (2011) 9 SCC 257: 2011 (13) SCR 923 - relied on. Ku/dip Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 324:2011 (5) SCR 186 - referred to. D 3. In the peculiar facts of the case, the courts below should have further decided as to how much E corroboration was required
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.