LexKRISHNAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1068 KRISHNAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION· (Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2010 etc.) JULY 31, 2012. [H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 - Murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly - Conviction by trial court of 3 accused - High Court acquitting one of them but reversing acquittal of four more accused - Held: The prosecution has clearly 0 established with ample evidence that A-13 and A-14 had murdered the deceased - Further, A-1, A-15, A-16 and A-21 were members of the same assembly which has caused murder of deceased - They had dragged the deceased after first assault and contributed in preventing him from escaping the assault of A 13 and A 14 - Therefore, A-1, A-15, A-16, A- E 21 are guilty of murder along with A-13 and A-14 u/s 302 read with s. 149 /PC - FIR - Delay in registration of, explained. The six appellants (A-13, A-14, A-1, A-15, A-16 and A- 21 along with others were prosecuted for causing the F death of the father of PW-1. The prosecution case was that there was a long standing enmity between the deceased and the families of the accused persons, as the grand father of the deceased had been killed by the members of the families of the accused. This enmity G further intensified due to political rivalry. On the date of the incident at about 10 A.M., accused A-1, A-13 to A-17, and A-21, armed with axes, chopper and clubs reached the place of occurrence. A-13 aild A-14 assaulted the victim with axe. A-1, A-15, A-16 and A-21 dragged the H 1068 KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY 1069 BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION victim. Again A-13, A-14 and A-17 assaulted the victim. A The accused threatened the bystanders. Meanwhile A-2 to A-12, A-18 to A-20, A-22 and A-24 also reached the scene of occurrence and assaulted the victim with hands and also kicked him. Thereafter all the accused left the place with their weapons. PW-1 went to his elder brother B and both 'of them reached the Police Station at 11.15 A.M. On arrival of the SHO, the written complaint of PW-1 was registered at 12.00 noon. The trial court convicted A-13, A-14 and A-17 u/s' 302/149 IPC. The High Court allowed the appeal of the State and also convicted A-1, A-15, A- c 16 and A-21 u/s 302/149 IPC. The appeal of A-13 and A- 14 was dismissed. However, A-17 was acquitted. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HE;LD: 1.1. The provisions of s.149 IPC will be D attracted whenever any offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or when the members of that assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, so that every E person, who, at the time of committing of that offence is a member, will be also vicariously held liable and guilty of that offence. Section 149 creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the F common object by any other member of that assembly. The factum of causing injury or not causing injury would not be relevant, where accused is sought to be roped in with the aid of s.149 IPC. [para 20] [1077-C-G] La/ji v. State Of U.P., 1989 (1) SCR 130 = (1989) 1 sec G 437; Al/auddin Mian v. State of Bihar 1989 (2) SCR 498 = (1989) 3 SCC 5; Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar 1995 (2) SCR 826 = (1995) 4 SCC 392; State v. Krishan Chand 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 640 = (2004) 7 SCC 629; Dea Narain v. State H 1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A of Uttar Pradesh 2010 (9) SCR 349 = (2010) 12 SCC 298 - relied on 1.2. In the instant case, the prosecution has clearly established with ample evidence that accused- A13 and 8 A14 had murdered the deceased. Further, accused- A1, A15, A16 and A21 were members of the same assembly which caused the murder of the deceased, in terms of s.149 IPC, as they had dragged the deceased after the first assault and contributed in preventing the deceased from C escaping the assault of A13 and A14. Therefore, accused A1, A15, A16, A21 are guilty of murder along with A13 and A14 u/s 302 read withs. 149 IPC. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. [para 21, 22 and 25] [1078-A-D & G] D Sahdeo v. State of U.P. 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 918· = (2004) 10 SCC 682 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpa/ 2008 (11) scR 1048 = (20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.