IQBAL & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 07-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.[2017] l S.C.R. 757 
IQBAL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 382 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 07, 2017 
[A.K. SIKRI AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 3021149, 3071149 - Unlawful 
assembly - Common object - Six persons including two appellants 
armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence - Inquired 
about the whereabouts of two family members, the moment one 
appeared on the scene, upon exhortation by 'G ', 'GL 'fired at 'BS' 
" and others, and other members also fired from their rifles I 
weapons - 'BS' succumbed to his injuries and two persons sustained 
injuries - Conviction of accused ulss. 148, 3021149, 3071149 holding 
that they formed unlawful assembly with the common object of killing 
the persons from the victim's side - Order upheld by the High 
Court - On appeal, held: Inference drawn that there was a common 
object to kill 'C ', 'BS' and even others - Occurrence and the presence 
of six accused persons armed with deadly weapons, not doubted at 
all and have been proved- to the hilt - Four convicted P..ersons have 
. died, thus, the two appellants rightly convicted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no error in the judgment of the courts 
below convicting all the six accused persons, including the 
appellants, for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 as well 
as 307 /149 IPC. Insofar as 'V' is concerned, some of the witnesses 
have specifically attributed role to him as well, i.e., he also fired 
from the rifle which he was carrying. Presence of 'I' also stands 
established. [Para 14] [766-B-C] 
1.2 There is a clinching evidence produced by the 
prosecution to show that all the six persons had come to the 
place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons. The moment 
they reached the house of the complainant ·and found the 
complainant along with his father (PW-3) sleeping there, they 
woke them up and first asked as to where 'C' was. When they 
were told that 'C' was away to Delhi, they immediately asked for 
757 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I S.C.R. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
•. 
the whereabouts of 'DS'. The moment 'BS' appeared on the scene, 
'G' pointed out at him and told other memhcrs of the assemhly 
that he was the person who could be finished. Immediately upon 
the exhortation of 'G' in the said manner, 'GL' fired at 'DS' and 
other members, who were carrying rifles, also started firing. 
Applying the ratio of Lalji's case, it could safely be inferred that 
there was a common ohjcct to kill 'C', 'DS' and even others. 
Insofar as the occurrence and the presence of the six accused 
persons are concerned, it may not be doubted at all and have 
been proved to the hilt. The four convicted persons have died 
the two appellants arc rightly convicted for the said findings. [Para 
IS, 16, l 7J [766-D-HJ 
Lalji and Ors. v. St([/e of U.P. 1989 (1) SCC 437:1989 
(1) SCR 130 - relied on. 
Ku/dip Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2011 (S) SCC 
324 : 2011 (S) SCR 186 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2011 (S) SCR 186 
referred to 
Para 11 
1989 (I) SCR 130 
relied on 
Para 16 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
382of20!5. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2014 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1240of1989. 
Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv., lmtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma lmtiaz, 
Adil Singh Doparai, Mis. Equity LexAssociates.,Advs. for the Appellants. 
Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Vikas Bansal, Udit Arora, Sandeepan 
Pathak, C. D. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: 
.TUDGMENT 
I. The two appellants herein, along with four other persons, were 
charged for committing offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 as 
well as Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (!PC). First 
Information Report in this beh~lf was registered with Police Station 
Sahawar, District Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The case of the prosecution, as 
can be discerned from the FIR which was lodged by complainant-Netrapal 
(PW-I) on 24'h March, 1985 at 9.05 a.m. and mentions the dat~ and 
' 
•• 
a, • 
IQBAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 
time of the incident as 23''/24'h March, 1985 at 00:30 hours, is to the 
fol lowing effect: 
2. In the night of23"/24" March; 1985, the complainant-Netrapal, 
along with his father SonpaJ, was sleeping in the verandah of their sitting 
room and his uncle Raghuvar Dayal, along with the brother of the 
complainant, viz., Bhoop Singh, was sle.epin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.