OM PRAKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 16-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 305 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 2006) 
APRIL 16, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302 rlw s.149 and s.148- Murder 
A 
B 
- Unlawful· assembly -Common object - Allegation that 
appellants inflicted injuries on deceased with lathis and butt C 
of gun whereafter appellant no. 1 came on a tractor and ran 
over the deceased· '-.'Conviction of appellants - Challenged 
on grounds that there was delay in lodging of FIR; that there 
was no evidence that appellant no. 1 ran over the tractor over 
the deceased; and that eye witnesses did not ascribe specific 
D 
overt act to each of the accused - Held: On facts, from the 
sequence of the events which include consumption of time 
in carrying the injured to the hospital, treatment availed of by 
the deceased, information given by the concerned authority 
of the primary h_ealth centre and arrival of police and also 
E 
taking note of the distance, i.e., 24 kilometers from the place 
of occurrence, it cannot be said that there was any delay in 
lodging of the FIR - That apart, mere delay in lodging FIR 
cannot by itself be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case 
- It came out in the evidence that all accused persons carried 
F 
lathis and most injuries were caused due to lathi blows and 
some by the tractor - Ocular testimony corroborated by 
medical evidence in this regard - Accused persons came 
together armed with lathis and a gun - Eye witnesses were 
natural witnesses, being brothers, and deposed in 
unequivocal manner about the assault by all the accused · G 
persons -
Common object clearly evident -
In such a 
situation, attribution of specific individual overt act has no role 
to play - All requisite tests to attract s. 149 /PC established 
305 
/ 
H 
306 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 7 S.C.R. 
A by the prosecution - Conviction of appellants accordingly 
affirmed. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 149 - Common object of unlawful 
assembly - Manner of inference - Held: It can be gathered 
from the nature of the assembly, the weapons used by its 
8 members and the behavior of the assembly at or before the 
scene of occurrence - Core of the offence is the word "object" 
which means the purpose or design and in order to make it 
common, it should be shared by all - Number and nature of 
injuries is a relevant fact to deduce that the common object 
C developed at the time of incident. 
FIR - Delay in lodging - Effect of - Held: Mere delay in 
lodging FIR cannot by itself be regarded as fatal to the 
prosecution case - The Court has a duty to take notice of the 
o delay and examine the same in the backdrop of factual $Core, 
whether there has been any acceptable explanation offered 
by the prosecution and whether the same deserves 
acceptance being satisfactory, but when delay is satisfactorily 
explained, no adverse inference is to be drawn. 
E 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, an 
unlawful assembly comprising of accused-appellants 
inflicted injuries on 'PD', the brother of PW3-informant 
with /athis and butt of the gun; whereafter appellant no.1 
came on a tractor and ran over 'PD' which led to bleeding 
F injuries on his arms, legs, waist and head and ultimately 
his death. The trial court found all the accused-appellants 
guilty and convicted them under Section 148 and section 
302 rlw section 149 IPC. The conviction was affirmed by 
the High Court. 
G 
H 
In the instant appeals, the appellants challenged their 
conviction contending that there was delay in lodging of. 
the FIR; that there was no evidence that appellant no.1 
ran over the tractor over the deceased; and that the so 
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
307 
called eye witnesses did not ascri.be any specific overt 
A 
act to each of the accused. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, from the sequence of 
the events which include consumption of time in carrying 
B 
the injured to the hospital, treatment ·availed of by the 
deceased, information given by the concerned authority 
of the primary health centre and arrival of police and also 
taking note of the distance, i.e., 24 kilometers from the 
place of occurrence, it cannot be said that there is any 
C 
delay in lodging of the FIR. That apart, it is settled in law 
that mere delay in lodging the first information report 
cannot by itself be regarded as fatal to the prosecution 
case. True it is, the court has a duty to take notice of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.