RAJENDRA SHANTARAM TODANKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 07-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJENDRA SHANT ARAM TODANKAR 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 7, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 143, 144, 147, 3021149 and 3241149-Prosecution 
of 8 accused-For causing death of one and injury to another person-Evidence 
C revealing that the accused who caused death did not cause injury to another 
person-Injuries and the role attributed to one of the accused causing injury 
not corroborated by medical evidence-Conviction by trial Court of all the 
accused-Upheld by High Court-On appeal, held-Conviction of all the 
accused of all the charges by application of Section 149 not justified-Accused 
causing death convicted uls 3021149 while acquitted u/s 3241149-Accused 
D causing injury convicted only u/s 3241149-Prosecution case not proved against 
accused alleged for causing injury-Hence acquitted of all the charges. 
/ 
S. 149-Vicarious liability of member of unlawful assembly for criminal 
act committed by another member of the assembly-Ascertaining of-Held, 
merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the assembly 
E every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for such 
criminal act-The inference as to likelihood of the commission of the criminal 
act must be capable of being held to be within the knowledge of another 
member of the assembly who is sought to be held vicariously liable for the 
said criminal act. 
F 
Appellant-accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 8 alongwith accused l to 4 were 
tried for offences u/ss. 143, 144, 147, 302/149 and 324/149 IPC. 
Prosecution case was that all the accused persons came armed with 
deadly weapons and opened an assault on three persons (PWs 3, 4 and 
the deceased). PWl who was standing at a distance apprehended attack 
G and ran away. Some of the accused chased him and inflicted injuries on 
him. Accused, deceased and prosecution witnesses belonged to adjoining 
localities. Testimony of eye witnesses revealed that deceased was assaulted 
by accused Nos. l to 5 and PWl was assaulted by other accused persons. 
Accused No. 8, a government servant, took the plea of false implication. 
H The injuries specifically attributed to him and the role assigned to him 
10 
R.S. TODANKAR v. STATE OF Mf\HARASHTRA 
II 
by PWs 1 and 5 were not corroborated by medical evidence, Trial Court A 
con~icted all the accused of all the offences. High Court confirmed the 
conviction. During pendency of the appeal before Higll Court accused 3 
and. 4 died. Accused 1 and 2 had filed a11peals lwfore this Court which 
were dismissed. Present appeals are by acc11sed J, 5, 6 and 8. 
Partly allowing the appeals, tl\Q Court 
B 
HELD: 1. A careful fi>ndln11 of the testimony of the eyewitnesses 
reveals that while aeeused Nos.1 to 5 assaulted the deceased, the other three 
accused persons have allegedly participated in assault on PWJ. In fact, 
there are two incidents of assault which have taken place in quick 
succession. The nature of the guilt attributable to the accused persons or C 
the criminal liability which can be fastened 011 them shall have to be 
determined by reference to the two assaults. There is no material available 
pn record to hold that the deceased and tile injured PWl had anything to 
do with each other or the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly 
of eight persons was to cause the death of the deceased as also to cause D 
injuries to PWl and such co111mon object was shared by all the eight 
accused persons. [16-H; 17-A-C) 
2. Unless the applicability of Section 149.eitber clause-is attracted 
and the Court is convince<\ on facts and in law both, of liability capable 
of being fastened vicariously by reference to either clause of Section 149 E 
lPC merely because a criminal act Wiii committed by a member of the 
assembly every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable 
for such criminal act. The inference as to likelihood of the commission of 
the given criminal act must be capable of being held to be within the 
knowledge of another member of the assembly who is sought to be held 
vicariously liable for the ~aid criminal act. It is difficult though not F 
impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An inference may 
be drawn from circumstance~ such as the background of the incident, the 
motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the 
members of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the 
members soon before, at 11r 11ner tho actual c

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