SIYARAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 16-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 389 
. "" 
SIYARAM AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF M.P 
Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2009 
MARCH 16, 2009 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
'" 
JJ) 
... 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 148, 3241149 and 3261149 -Accused causing injuries c 
to their opponents by 'pharsa' and sword - Acquittal by trial 
court holding that there were material contradictions and 
omissions in the evidence of injured witnesses - High Court 
recorded conviction holding that evidence of injured witnesses 
~ 
was corroborated by medical evidence - HELD: Considering 
the evidence on record, judgment of High Court cannot, in D 
any event, be said to be deficient - Keeping in view the roles 
ascribed to accused and nature of injuries caused, sentence 
reduced to period already undergone. 
ss. 141 and 149 - 'Common object' of unlawful assembly E 
- Discussed. 
"' 
ss. 34 and 149 - 'Common intention' and 'common object' 
- Difference between - Discussed. 
The accused-appellants were prosecuted for F 
commission of offences punishable ulss 148, 149, 294/ 
149, 3241149, 326/149 and 3361149 IPC. The prosecution 
case was that over a land dispute the accused assaulted 
the complainant party causing 'pharsa' and sword injuries 
___., --I 
to complainant, his brother and another. The trial court G 
acquitted the accused of all the charges holding that there 
were material contradictions and omissions in the 
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On appeal, the 
High Court held that the evidence of three injured 
389 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence, and 
convicted and sentenced the accused u/ss 148,324/149 
and 326/149 IPC. It, however, maintained the acquittal as 
regards the charges u/ss 294 and 336 r/w s.149 IPC 
B 
In the appeal filed by the accused, it was contended 
for the appellants that the trial court had indicated sufficient 
reasons for acquittal and the view taken by it, being a 
possible one, High Court should not have interfered with 
the same. It was also submitted that s.149 had no 
..,.
application to the case. 
c 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1 There is no embargo on the appellate court 
in reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal 
is based. The paramount consideration of the court is to 
D ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A 
~ 
miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of 
the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. 
In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is 
cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence 
E where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose 
of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really 
committed any offence or not. (para 6) (394-G-H; 395-A-B] 
Bhagwan Singh v. State ofM.P 2003 (3) SCC 21 - relied 
on. 
F 
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 
(2) SCC 793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 
(9) SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000 (4) SCC 
484; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (11) SCC 519; 
G State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (11) SCC 271; State of 
-.---- ,, 
Punjab v. Pho/a Singh 2003 (11) SCC 58; Suchand Pal v. 
Phani Pal 2003 (11) SCC 527; and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. 
State of U.P. 2004 (11) SCC 410 - referred to. 
2.1 As regards applicability of s.149 IPC, the emphasis 
H is on the common object and not on common intention. It 
SIYARAM AND ORS. V STATE OF M.P 
391 
--. 
_( 
cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law th.at A 
unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is 
alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot 
be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing 
required is that he should have understood that the 
assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of B 
·the acts which fall within the purview of s.141. The 
expression 'in prosecution of common object' as appearing 
.,,. 
in s.149 have to be strictly construed as equivalent to 'in 
.. 
order to attain the common object'. It must be immediately 
connected with the common object by virtue of the nature c 
of the object. [para 7) [395-F-H; 396-A-D] 
2.2 '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 of the accused has the same object in view, their D 
number is five or more and they act as an assembly to 
achieve that object. The 'common object' of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.