RAJ NATH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 16-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 336 
A 
RAJ NATH 
.. . 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2009) 
" ,..__ 
B 
JANUARY 16, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss.3021149, 3071149, 147 and 148 - Accused fired at 
victims with gun and country made pistols - Resulting in death · 
of four and injuries to one witness - Conviction and sentence 
of life imprisonment awarded by trial court, affirmed by High 
D Court - Held: There is nothing infirm in the conclusions of trial 
court and the High Court in placing reliance on tl]e testimony 
).- . 
of eye-witnesses - Medical evidence and forensic report 
corroborating ocular testimony - s. 149 has clear application 
to the facts of the case - Conviction justified. 
E 
ss. 141 and 149 - 'Common object' - Connotation of-
Explained. 
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2009, his 
two sons and three others were prosecuted for 
F commission of offences punishable ulss.147, 148, 3021149 
and 307/149 IPC. The prosecution case was that the 
accused had animosity with the informant as he had 
helped their rival 'RD' to their loss in a civil litigation, 'RD' 
sold some land to PW2, the nephew of the informant, this 
G led to further ill will between the parties. On the fateful day 
at about 6.00 p.m. when the informant, his sons 'N' and 
'M' accompanied by PW2 and 'S' were returning from the 
village of the appellant after attending a 'Bhagwat', all the 
six accused waylaid them. The appellant fired at them with 
H 
336 
RAJ NATH v. STATE OF U.P. 
337 
.. 
his gun and the others by country made pistols resulting A 
" 
in injuries to PW-2, death of one of the victims at the spot, 
• 
and another on his way to hospital, the third one died in 
the hospital the following day and the fourth one four 
days after the incident. The medical evidence and the 
forensic report corroborated the ocular testimony. The 
B 
trial court acquitted one of the accused and convicted 
five of them of the offences charged, and sentenced all 
of them, inter alia, to imprisonment for life. The High Court 
having affirmed the conviction and sentence, the accused 
filed the appeals. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. So far as the reliability of evidence of the 
eye witnesses PWs 1 and 2 is concerned, their evidence 
has been analysed in great detail by the trial court and 
D 
... 
the High Court. PW-2 was one of the injured persons. 
Therefore, there is nothing infirm in the conclusions of 
the trial court and the High Court placing reliance on their 
evidence. It is to be noted that one of the deceased 
persons received nearly 30 injuries which is consistent 
E 
with the prosecution case that the accused persons were 
holding country made pistols. [Paras 6 and 7] [343-8-C] 
2.1. As regards the applicability of s.149 IPC, the 
emphasis is on the common object and not on common 
F 
intention. 'Common object' is different from a 'common 
intention' as it does not require a prior concert and a 
common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough 
if each has the same object in view and their number is 
five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve 
G 
that object. The 'common object' of an assembly is to be 
ascertained from the acts and language of the"lllembers 
composing it, and from consideration of all the 
surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the 
course of conduct adopted by the members of the 
assembly. For determination of the common object of the 
H 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members 
of the unlawful assembly, before, at the time of attack and 
thereafter, as also motive for the crime, are some of the 
relevant considerations. [Para 8 and 9] [343-D-E; 344-F-H] 
8 
2.2. Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first 
part of the section means that the offence to be 
committed in prosecution of the common object must be 
one which is committed with a view to accomplish the 
common object. In order that the offence may fall within 
C the first part, the offence must be connected immediately 
with the common object of the unlawful assembly of 
which the accused was member. Even if the offence 
committed is not in direct prosecution of the common 
object of the assembly, it may yet fall u/s 141, if it can be 
held that the offence was such as the members knew was 
D likely to be committed and this is what is required in the 
second part of the section. The 

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