LexJASWANT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA APRIL 4, 2000 .[D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 323, 149 and 34-Death of two persons caused by nine accused persons by fanning an unlawful assembly- Multiple injuries inflicted with guns, spears lathis etc.-Injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature-Trial Court convicted the accused persons inflicting fatal below, under Section 302 /PC and others under Section 3021149 /PC-On appeal High Court held four accused guilty under Section 302134 /PC-Acquitted the other five accused-On appeal, Held: With regard to Section 34 IPC, promotion and facilitation of crime is required in addition to common intention whereas regarding Section 149 !PC, mere presence in the unlawful assembly is sufficient-In view of the presence of elements of both the sections, acquittal was erroneous. Penal Code, 1860 : Section 97-Ghastly killing of two persons by nine persons-Head of one of the accused almost severed from body-Dead bodies bore deep and incised wounds in addition to gunshots-Accused persons had only one or two wounds each either on anns or fingers-Plea of self defence taken at a later stage-Held : Plea of Self defence not sustainable. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 161 (2) read with Explanation to Section 162-Assault by a number of persons on another set of persons-Eye witnesses not certain as to who assaulted whom and with what weapon-Held : Such a discrepancy in the circumstances no ground to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses. The appellant-accused had enmity with the deceased persons. A relative of the accused had been murdered by deceased K and B, who were later been released on bail. In order to seek revenge, Accused 1 to 9 formed an unlawful assembly armed with guns, spears, lathis, kirpans, 'naiza', a kind of spear, etc. On the day of occurrence, when deceased K and B alongwith PW-2 and PW-4 were going on motorcycles, all the accused persons waylaid them. A-8 struck PW-2 on the head with a lathi whereas A-1 gave a ga11dasi below to B. PW-2 fled form the scene.Kand 903 A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. B both ran into a neighbouring house and locked themselves from inside. All the accused after chasing the deceased broke open the door and at- tacked K and B with their weapons. The deceased tried to defend them- selves with kirpans and even inflicted injuries on A-1, A-2 & A-3. A-2 and A-5 inflicted fatal wounds on K whereas A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-9 gave fatal blows to B. PW-2 lodged a complaint with the police naming all the nine accused persons and a case was registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-B and 452 IPC against all the accused. According to the Post-mortem report, seven injuries on the body of K and twenty injuries on the body of B were stated to be inflicted and the cause of death was reported to be shock and hemorrhage resulting form ante mortem multiple injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. The trial court, after convicting A-1, A-2 and A-3 under Section 302 IPC sentenced them to life imprisonment. It also sentenced A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9, under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, to life imprisonment. On appeals preferred by all the accused persons, High Court altered the conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-8 to offences under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. It also held A-8 guilty under section 323 IPC and A-1, A-2 and A-3 guilty under Sections 323 read with 34 IPC. liigh Court acquitted A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-9 of all charges. PW-2 also preferred an appeal against acquittal by way of special leave but special leave-was granted against acquittal of A-4 and A-5 only. Hence the present appeals. Disposing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The similarity of Sections 34 and 149 IPC lies in the requirement of a common object or intention or a pre-arranged plan in furtherance of which the act is done. The difference lies in the d(!gree of actual participation required in the criminal enterprise. The emphasis is on physical presence and promotion of the crime. As far as Section 149 IPC is concerned, in addition to the common object, merely being a mem- ber for an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC may be sufficient. [916-H; 917-A; F-G] Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1976) 3 SCC 779; Lalji v. State of U.P., [1989) 1 SCC 437 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.