LexMUNIVEL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MUNIVEL A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU APRIL 5, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 read with Section 149. Unlawfitl assembly-Common object of-Vicarious liability-Accused persons accosted PWs I and 2 with deadly weapons at midnight and accused C No. 2 stabbed PW-2 on his abdomen as a result whereof his intestines came out-When the deceased and his wife came out followed by their daughters PW-5 and PW-6 accused No.2 assaulted the deceased-Whoever had come to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervene had suffered injuries at the hands of one or the other accused persons-Occurrence resulted in the death of" one person and sufj'ering of grievous injuries by some of the prosecution witnesses-Trial Court convicted the appellants under S.302 r!w S. 149- High Court affirmed the conviction--Correctness of-Held : S. 149 provides for vicarious liability-For the purpose of invoking S. 149 the entire incident must be taken into consideration-If an offence is committed by any member D of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof. eve1y E person who at the time of committing that offence was a member would be guilty of the offence committed-It is not necessary to record a definite or specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawjid assembly caused the fatal injury-The accused persons came with deadly weapons at midnight-The role played by each accused .is clearly proved by prosecution ·witnesses-Conviction upheld. F Words & Phrases: "Common object "-Meaning of-In the context of S. 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The appellants along with other accused persons accosted PWs I and 2 with deadly weapons at midnight and accused no. 2 stabbed PW-2 on his abdomen as a result whereof his intestines came out. When the deceased and his wife came out followed by their daughters PW-5 and PW-6 accused No. 2 813 G H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R. A assaulted the deceased. Whoever had come to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervence had suffered injuries at the hands of one or the other accused persons. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the appeals. B The following question arose before the Court:- c D Whether the appellants can be said to have formed a common object with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to commit the alleged offences or not? Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : I. I. For the purpose of invoking Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the entire incident must be taken into consideration. The occurrence resulting in the death of one person and suffering of grievous injuries by some of the prosecution witnesses were part of the same transaction. (823-E( 1.2. The appellants came with other accused persons with deadly weapons at midnight. The active role played by both the appellants clearly stand proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. [823-F( 2. Whoever had come to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervene E had suffered injuries at the hands of one or the other accused persons. PW- 3 and PW-IO, it is true, were related to the deceased, but, they were also related to accused Nos. 1 and 2, as admittedly both, the families are related to each other. It is not the case of the appellants or for that matter the accused Nos. 1 and 2 that PW -3 and PW-IO were inimical to them. There is nothing on record to show that they bore any grudge towards them. (823-H; 824-A[ F 3. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for vicarious liability. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof or such as the members of that assembly knew that the offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing that offence was a G member would be guilty of the offence committed. The common object may be commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of commission of yet another offence, the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly. Whether a member of such unlawful assembly was aware regards likelihood of commission of H another offence or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of -- _ J -- MUN IVEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.] 815 each case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.