SADDIK @ LALO GULAM HUSSEIN SHAIKH & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 03-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 421 
421 
SADDIK @ LALO GULAM HUSSEIN SHAIKH & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1999-2000 of20 I 0) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Penal Code, I860: 
"s.302 rlw s.I49, .s.143, 147, 148, 323 rlw s.149 - Conviction 
under - Unlawful assembly and murder - Common object of killing 
- Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, hot altercation took 
place over money between accused no. I-food stall owner and the 
deceased and other prosecution witnesses - Accused no. I abused 
PW-I and took out knife - However, PW-3 intervened and separated 
PW-I and other prosecution witnesses and accused no.I - Thereafter, 
complainant party travelled to another village where they narrated 
the incident to PW-5 - Thereafter, while PW-5 had gone to fill petrol, 
accused persons came to the place where PW-I and other 
prosecution witnesses were waiting for PW-5 - Accused no. I, 2 and 
3 caused knife injuries to the victim-deceased while other accused 
persons started beating the complainant and other prosecution 
witnesses with sticks - Complainant and PW-2 and PW-3 fled to 
save themselves and narrated the incident to PW-14 whereafter they 
came to the spot and took victim-deceased to hospital where he 
died - Trial court found the accused persons guilty - High Court 
confirmed conviction - On appeal, held: The nature of the injury, 
the vital part of the body on which the same was inflicted and the 
weapon used by accused no.I, and the medical evidence showed 
that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause 
death - The offence of murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt 
against the accused - Interference -with the conviction not called 
for. 
s.300, Exception 4 - Invocation of-Accused no. I had arrived 
at the scene of occurrence with nine armed men out of which three 
were equipped with knives and the rest with sticks - Sufficient time 
had elapsed between the initial altercation at the restaurant of 
accused no. I and the subsequent arrival of the accused persons at 
421 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
422 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
the spot of the crime - It was also established from the evidence 
that accused no.I had inflicted knife injury of such a nature, upon 
the unarmed deceased, that was sufficient in the ordinary course of 
nature to cause death - Hence, benefit of Exception 4 of s.300 
cannot be granted to accused no. I in the present case. 
s. I 49 - Invocation of- Overt act - Held: For invoking s.149, 
the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence 
co111mitted during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the 
fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence 
actually committed was likely to be co111111itted in prosecution of the 
common object. 
Criminal law1: Motive - Conviction in the absence of proof of 
motive - Held: In case there is direct trustworthy evidence of 
witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its 
significance - Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the 
occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as 
to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of 
absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court found that there were three stab 
injuries on the chest, stomach and intestine which we~e sufficient 
in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death of the deceased, 
thereby attracting clause, "thirdly" of Section 300 read with 
Section 149 of the IPC. As per clause Thirdly of Section 300 of 
the IPC, if the accused were having common object of causing 
only bodily injury, which were found sufficient in the ordinary 
course of nature, to cause death, such killing will fall within the 
ambit of this clause Third of Section 300 of IPC. Thus, looking to 
the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the offence of murder 
was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. [Paras 
13, 14) [429-A-B, E) 
2. Once it is established that the unlawful assembly had a 
common object, it is not necessary that all the persons forming 
the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some 
overt act. For the purpose of incurring vicarious liability under 
the provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful 
assembly rests upon the fact whether the other members knew 
SADDIK @ LALO GULAM HUSSEIN SHAI

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