LexNAGESAR versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 637 NAGESAR v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2014) MAY 5, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss. 304 (Part II}, 147 and 148 - Out of seven convicts, c two filed appeals stating that they were not named in FIR and their presence at place of occurrence was not established - Held: Mere presence or association of a person with other members alone is not per se sufficient to hold him criminally liable for the offences committed by the ot(lers unless there 0 was sufficient evidence to show that he a/so intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act - In the instant case, there is no legally acceptable material to prove that appellants either were present on the spot or they acted as members of unlawful assembly to connect them with the death of deceased - Appellants are, accordingly, given E benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. The two appellant along with five others were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable u/ss. 147,148 and 302 IPC. The prosecution case was that on F the date of incident in the evening while one 'KR' with PW- 1 and another were sitting in the market chowk, accused nos. 1 to 7 were consuming 'ganja' and liquor there, which was objected to by 'KR', and in the altercation 'KR' slapped A-4 and left the place with PW1 and another. 'KR' G again returned to the saia place where the juvenile ! accused threw chilli powder in the eyes of 'KR' and assaulted him with sword, and when the victim fell down, he dropped a stone on his head, and other accused also 637 H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R. A assaulted hiln. Accused no. 1 was said to have attacked 'KR' with a stick. When PWB intervened, he was assaulted by A-1 with a sword. 'KR' was taken to hospital where he died. The case of juvenile accused was referred to Juvenile Justice Board. The trial court convicted A-1 to B A-7 of the offences charged and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The High Court converted the offence from s. 302 to 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced each of the accused persons to six years R.I. In the instant appeals filed by two of the accused C persons, namely, A-6 and A-7, it w.as contended for the appellants that they were not named in the FIR; that PW9 did not mention them as having been present during the occurrence; and that PWB did not attribute any overt act to them, in the attack and, as such, their presence at the D place of occurrence was not established. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is settled law that mere presence or association of a person with other members alone is not E per se sufficient to hold him criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there was sufficient evidence on record to show that he also intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such F an c-ffending act. [para 13] [644-G-H; 645-A] K.M Ravi and others vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 16 sec 337 - relied on. 1.2. In the instant case, there is no legally acceptable material to prove that the appellants acted as members G of unlawful assembly to connect them with the death of the deceased. At any rate in the absence of reliable evidence to prove that the appellants were either present on the spot or that they had committed any overt act that could show that they shared the common object of the H unlawful assembly it is not possible to support their NAGESAR v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH 639 conviction and benefit of doubt has to be given to them. A The appellants are, accordingly, given benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentences imposed on them are set aside and'they are acquitted of all the charges. [para 13-14] [645-A-D] Case Law Reference: B (2009)16 sec 337 relied on para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2014) · c From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2012 in CRA No. 14/2007, 42/2007, 331/2007 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. WITH Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2014 Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Jitender Kumar, Priyanka Panpe.y, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the Appellant. D Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Respondent. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. 2. Both the appeals have been preferred against the F common judgment dated 31.1.2012 of the Div
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.