LexMUNNA CHANDA versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_,-~ MUNNA CHANDA A fJ v. ST ATE OF ASSAM FEBRUARY 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B ~ Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with 149-Altercation between two groups-Homicidal death of one person-Conviction under section 3021 149-Justification of-Held: There was no evidence to show that accused had c common object of intentional killing of the deceased and role, played by accused - I either conjointly or individually in causing the death-Nor established that ' they were members of unlawfal assembly-Thus, neither section 34 nor section 149 /PC attracted-Hence, cannot be convicted under section 3021149 !PC and are entitled to benefit of doubt. D There was an altercation between two groups of persons. Homicidal ____, death of M belonging to one of the group was caused. Appellants were + charged under section 302 IPC for intentionally causing death of M. Both Trial Court and High Court convicted them on basis of the depositions of _prosecution witnesses. Hence the present appeal. E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, appellants were not armed with weapons. Except B, they were not parties to all the three stages of the dispute. At the third stage of the quarrel, they wanted to teach deceased - and others a lesson. For picking up quarrel with B, they might have F -----; become agitated and demanded apologies from M~ It was so done at the instance of one. M who was assaulted by B at the instance of another in the group. However, M while being assaulted could free himself from the grip of the appellants and fled from the scene. Deceased was being chased not only by the appellants but by many others. He was found dead next G morning. (473-B-C! 1 1.2. No evidence has been brought on r1cords to establish that the 1· appellants M and U had committed any offence. They were not named in the FIR. They were not identified in the dock. No witness has taken their 467 H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.<;:.R. A names as the persons who committed any oven act. No recovery has been .,- , made from them. There is also no evidence that they had chased the deceased. [473-G) 1.3. It cannot be said that the appellants had common object of intentional killing of the deceased. There is no evidence as to who had B assaulted him and at whose hands he received injuries. Role played by accused either conjointly or individually in ca vising death of the deceased is not known. It is also not' known as to whether if one or all of the appellants were present, when the last blow was given. It has not been established that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly. C The finding of guilt of the appellants was arrived at only on basis of two circumstantial evidence that they had chased tl~e deceased; and that they had prepared and forced the prosecution witnesses to sign a sulhanama wherein a statement was made that they wot:ld not file any complaint against the accused. Therefore, neither section 34 nor section 149 IPC is attracted. Appellants cannot be convicted for commission of an offence D under section 302/149 IPC. They are entitled to benefit of doubt. [473-C, D, G, H; 474-A) Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1978) 4 SCC 440 and Shambhu Kuer v. State of Bihar, AIR (1982) SC 1228, relied on. E Bishna @ Bhiswadeb Mahato & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 9 SCALE, 204, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2005. F From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2004 of the Gauhati High G Court in Cr!. A. No. 37/2003. WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 840/2005, 84112005, 842/2005 and 25112005. J.C. Gupta, Manish Goswami (for Mis. Map & Co.), Sanjay Hegde, Azim H. Laskar, Anand, Rajneesh Singh, A.K. Mishra, A.R. Singh, Abhijit Sengupta and Ramesh Chandra Pandey, AC (NP) for the Appellant. Sidharth Luthra, Krishna Sharma, V.K. Sidharthan, Ms. Rajni Gupta H and Mis. Corporate Law Group for the Respondent. .... MUNNA CHANDA v. STATE OF ASSAM [SINHA, J.] 469 The Judgment of the Court was delivere by A S.B. SINHA, J. The appellants were charged for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Moti Suklabaidya. 3.10.1995 was the 'NA VMI'. The deceased went to join 'Durga Puja' festival along with Sushendra Chandra-PW3 and Babu! Chanda. They met with one Tapan Chanda near Chandranathpur Railway B Station. He latter inform
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.