LexSTATE OF M.P. versus ASHOK & OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' [2015] 7 S.C.R. 1073 STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK & OTHERS ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos.2096-2098of2009) JULY01,2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 149 - Murder - Prosecution case that the victim-deceased was caught by C the accused and petrol poured over him and lit fire - Deceased ran from the spot- Respondents surrounded him and attacked him with sword and burning tyre - Trial court convicted all the accused - High Court granted benefit of 0 doubt to the respondents on the premise that they had reached the spot after the commission of offence and as such the charge of formation of unlawful assembly by them was not established -Appeal against acquittal of respondents - Held: Role cf respondents in the commission of crime was E clearly made out from the dying declaration as well as testimony of the eye witness - The sequence of narration certainly showed that they were waiting in ambush - It may be that only two of them set the deceased afire but the others definitely ensured by surrounding the deceased that he would F not be allowed to escape- It was a crime which was committed by all of them guided by same purpose, acting in concert achieving the result that was desired- The intent of the entire assembly was clear, eloquently established by their presence, preparedness and participation - The order of G acquittal is set aside and convict(on order by trial court is restored -Appeal - State's appeal against acquittal. 1073 H 1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 7 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Statement Ext. P-20 leading to the registration of crime as well as statement Ext. P-17 recorded by the Executive Magistrate are dying B declarations by the victim-deceased. Both these statements are consistent and name the respondents and state the role played by them in surrounding the deceased and giving cries that he be beaten and should not be left. In the face of such assertions, it is impossible C to accept that these respondents arrived at the scene of occurrence after the crime was completed. Their role is that of participants in the crime who did not allow the deceased to escape by encircling him. The finding rendered by the High Court is against the record. [Para D 9][1081-A-C] 2. Both the statements clearly referred to the presence of PW13. It was PW13 who immediately ran home and intimated the fact that the deceased was set E afire, to the inmates of the house. Consequently PW4 and PW15 arrived at the scene of occurrence. The deceased was then removed to the hospital. In his testimony PW13 stated that while the deceased was burning, respondent 'V' threw a burning tyre upon him F and original accused threw a sword at him. The post mortem clearly showed an incised injury in the back suffered by the deceased, which completely supported such assertion. The presence of said PW13 was completely established. He was eye witness to the G occurrence. In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report, it is quite clear that the respondents were present when the deceased was burning alive. The sequence of narration certainly H showed that they were waiting in ambush. It may be that only two of them set the deceased afire but the others STATE OF M.P. v. ASHOK & OTHERS ETC. 1075 definitely ensured by surrounding the deceased that he A would not be allowed to escape. Further, throwing of burning tyre and the sword would also indicate the active role played by them. Even if one of them was ready with a sword, that is clearly indicative of the level of preparedness on their part and there is no reason how B they could not be said to be members of unlawful assembly. It was a crime which was committed by all of them guided by same purpose, acting in concert achieving the result that was desired. The intent of the entire assembly was clear, eloquently established by C · their presence, preparedness and participation. [Paras 10, 11] [1081-0-H; 1082-A-C] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2096-2098of2009. D From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2007 of the High Court of Judicature of M. P. at Jabalpurin Criminal Appeal Nos. 170/95, 841/95 and 369/96. Vanshaja Shukla, Mishra Saurabh for the Appellant. Akshat Shrivastava, Sarabjit Dutta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E F UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These appe"als by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.