LALJI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 14-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

Ill 
LALJI & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. 
August 14, 1973 
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
367 
Criminal Law-Members of complainants party Injured-No evide11ce 
of 
any common object of accused-liability of accused can only be for 1'ndividual 
acts. 
A!. a result of a fight between the members of the accused party and the 
party of the complainants the accused were tried and convicted 
for various 
offei>:es. The first appellant was convicted of the offence under s. 304, Part J, 
and of offences under S.. 148, 323, 324 and 325 read with s. 149. The 
other 
appellants were convicted of the offences under Ss. 147 and 304, 323, 324 and 
325 read with s. 149. The High Court, in appeal, while acquitting one of the 
accused, observed that the conclusion reacbCd by the trial court were substan~ 
tially correct and were based upon reasonable appreciation of the evidence. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : On the findings of the trial court neither party attacked the members 
of the opposite party at the commencement of the occurren::e. There was at 
that stage remonstrance and counter remonstrance only. Someone then _started 
a fight, and according to the trial court it could not definitely be determined as 
to which- of the two parties struck the first blow. The.re was no premeditatoin 
and the occurrence was a sudden affair. The circumstances of the case do not 
show that the appellants formed a common object to do any of the acts men-
tioned in the 5 clauses of s. 141. Section 141 (4), 1.P.C., could not be relied 
upon by the prosecution because, it could not be said that the common object 
of the accused was to enforce any right or supposed right by means of crimi-
nal force or show of criminal force. 
The circumstances of the case show that 
the Jathis were weilded by the accused not with a view to enforce any right or 
supposed right but because of the fact that a fight had started and the Com-
plainants' party was found to be armed. Therefore, it should be held that each 
accused WM liable for bis individual act and not vicariously liable for the acts 
of the others. Hence, the first appellant C'1uld be convicted only of the oft"'nce 
under s. 304, part 1, I.P.C. and his conviction for offences 
other than that 
should be set aside. 
As regards the other appellants they caused simple hurt 
with their lathis and they could be convicted only of the offence under s. 323 
I.P.C. One grievous injury was caused to a member of th": 
comolainants' 
party but. on the material on record, it could not be said who caused that 
fojury. [371B-HJ 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
16 of 1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
12-9-69 of the Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1096 
G 
and 1097 of 1966. 
H 
Nuruddin Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the appellal)ts. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J. 
This is an appeal by soecial leave by Lalji (23), 
Mahabir (45), Nar Singh (30), Paras Nath (27) and Ram Naresb 
(30) against the iudgment of the Allahabad Hi~h Court affirming on 
appeal the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 
Lalji has been 
convicted under section 304 Part I and section 148 Indian Penal Code 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 j I s.C.R. 
A 
and bas been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period 
of ten years on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for a period 
of two years on the second count. Lalji has, in addition to that, been 
convicted for offences under section 324 read with section 149, section 
325 read with section 149 and section 323 read with section 149 and 
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 
two years, 2! years and one· year respectively. 
Mahabir, Nar Singh, 
B. 
Paras Nath and Ram Naresh have been convic•ed under ·section 147, 
section 304 Part I read with section 149, section ·324 read with section 
149, section 325 read with section 149 and section 323 read with 
section 149 Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months, five years. 
18 months, 2t years and one yealr respectively. 
Thesentences in the 
case of each of the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently. 
C 
Budhdhu (50) and Munni Lal (20) were tried along "ith the appel· 
!ants. 
Munni Lal was acquitted by the trial court, while Budhdhu 
was acquitted by the High Court. 
Tht" appeal arise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.