RAMESH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 21-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 799 
RAMESH 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2007 etc.) 
OCTOBER 21, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal code, 1860: 
s. 302 r. w. s. 149 -
Unlawful assembly - Accused-
c..ppel/ants variously armed assembled at one place and 
thereafter came to the place of occurrence and started assault 
together - When deceased protested, one of the members 
A 
B 
c 
of the unlawful assembly shot him dead - Some accused 
0 
caused injury by fire arm, 'gandasa', lathi, etc. to victim party 
- Conviction of accused u/s. 302 with the aid of s. 149 - Held: 
Accused had come and left the place of occurrence together 
- They were, therefore, the members of the unlawful assembly 
and offences were committed in pursuance of the common 
E 
object and, each of them were liable for the offence committed 
by any other member of the assembly - Accused rightly held 
guilty u/s. 302 with the aid of s. 149. 
s. 149 - Applicability of - Held: For applicability of s. 149, 
it is not necessary that each of the accused must commit 
F 
some illegal overt act. 
The prosecution case was that the accused: persons 
including the appellants variously armed came to the 
place of incident. One of the accused exhorted the others 
G 
to attack the victim party. The victims were given lathi and 
'gandasa' blows and firing from pistol by the accused 
persons resulting in death of one person and injuries to 
others. The trial court convicted some accused under 
799 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A Sections 302, 307, 448, 449, 323, 324, 148 read with section 
149 IPC and under Sections 25 and 54/59 of the Arms Act 
while other accused were acquitted. The High Court 
maintained the conviction of the appellants. Three 
appeals were filed by the appellants challenging the 
B conviction and sentence whereas one appeal was filed 
against the acquittal of the two accused. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The common object of an unlawful 
C assembly has to be gathered from the nature of the 
assembly, arms possessed by them and the behaviour 
of the assembly at or before the occurrence. It is an 
inference which has to be deduced from the facts and 
circumstances of each case. To attract the mischief of 
D Section 149, IPC, it is not necessary that each of the 
accused must commit some illegal overt act. When the 
assembly is found to be unlawful and if offence is 
committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in 
prosecution of the common object, every member of the 
E unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence 
committed by another member of the assembly. An 
assembly which is not unlawful when assembled may 
subsequently become an unlawful assembly. In the 
instant case, there was material to show that the 
F appellants variously armed, including the fire arms 
assembled at one place and thereafter came to the place 
of occurrence and started assault together and when 
protested by the deceased, one of the members of the 
unlawful assembly shot him dead and some of them 
G caused injury by fire arm, 'gandasa', lathi, etc. to others. 
All of them had come and left the place of occurrence 
together. There was, therefore, no escape from the 
conclusion that appellants were the members of the 
unlawful assembly and offences were committed in 
pursuance of the common object and, therefore, each of 
H them shall be liable for the offence committed by any 
RAMESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
801 
other member of the assembly. The trial court correctly 
A 
held them guilty with the aid of Section 149, IPC, which 
was rightly affirmed in appeal by the High Court. [Para 9] 
[805-F-H; 806-A-C] 
Chandra Bihari Gautam and others vs. State of Bihar 
B 
sec 2002 (9) sec 208 - relied on. 
2. So far as the acquittal of the accused-respondents 
was concerned, the High Court on appraisal of the 
material came to the conclusion that they were falsely 
roped in. The said conclusion was arrived at on appraisal 
C 
of the evidence. The view taken by the High Court was 
one of the possible views and that being so, order of 
acquittal needed no interference by this Court. [Para 11] 
[807-E] 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
sec 2002 (9) sec 208 
relied on 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 628 of 2007. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.5.2006 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 918 of 
2003. 
WITH 
Crl. A.Nos. 1272, 1273, 1274 of 2007 
F 
Ne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.