STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus KASHIRAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 27-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
KASHIRAO AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I860; Ss. 141, 147, 148, 301; 302, 307, 452 .r/w Section 
149: 
Accused assaulted the deceased and another-One of them died and 
other seriously injured-Trial Court convicted and sentenced them for life 
imprisonment-On appeal, High Court held them liable for committing offence 
under Section 326 and altered their conviction-Held: Since evidence of eye-
witnesses cogent and credible, it cannot be discarded on the ground of animosity 
D between the accused and the victim-Common object of unlawful assembly 
normally be formed amongst members by an express agreement-It ·could be 
modified/altered/abandoned at any stage-It may be lawful but subsequently 
become unlav.ful-Direct evidence generally not obtainable-Wrongful 
intention could be gathered from the acts of the accused-Since accused 
armed with deadly weapons inflicted serious injuries on the victims which 
E resulted in the death of one of them, the Trial Court rightly convicted them ul 
s 302-Section 326 not attracted-Accused intended to kill PW 1 but killed the 
deceased-However, it does n9t change the liability <>fthe accused-Hence, 
Section 149 applicable-Taking into consideration the nature of injuries 
inflicted on the victim and the manner of assault, trial Cour.t rightly convicted 
F the main accused under Section 307 as we/I-Evidence Act, 1872. 
Common object and common intention-Distinction between-Discussed 
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Interference in the appeal 
against acquittal-Held: since lhe judgment of the High Court suffered from 
G legal infirmities, interference not only necessary but highly desirable. 
H 
Words and Phrases: 
'Jn prosecution of the common object', 'knew '-Meaning of-In the 
context of Section 149 /PC 
1060 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA v. KASHIRAO 
1061 
According to the prosecution, there was stralned relationship A 
between PWl and respondent-accused No.I. On the fateful day, PWl 
invited his friends including the deceased for a feast when the accused 
persons, seven in number, armed with deadly weapons assembled in front 
of his house with the common object of killing PWl. The accused hurled 
stones at the house of PWl; the deceased being afraid of the assaults tried B 
to escape, the accused followed him and assaulted him with deadly weapons 
and thereby committed his murder. Thereafter, they also chased and 
assaulted PWl, injured him seriously and ran away. Mother of PWl took 
him to a nearby Police Station, FIR was lodged and he was hospitalized. 
The police investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet. The trial 
Court found the accused persons guilty of offences punishable under C 
Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 452 r/w Section 149 IPC and sentenced 
them to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, High Court found all 
the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC r/w 
Section 147 IPC. Hence the present appeal by the State. 
It was contended for the appellant-State that the High Court D 
discarded the evidence of eye-witnesses/applicability of Section 149 IPC 
without assigning any reasons; that the fact that the accused were armed 
with deadly weapons assaulted and murdered the deceased and also 
assaulted PWl was established by clear, cogent and credible evidence, thus 
Section 149 IPC was applicable; and that merely because PWI was the E 
intended victim, it does not take away the liability of the accused for 
committing the crime in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since P\\.1 was 
the intended victim, Section 149 could not be applied; that the evidence 
of eye-witnesses lack acceptability/creditability; and there is limited scope F 
of interference in the appeal against acquittal. 
· 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Evidence of Prosecution Witnesses is cogent and credible. G 
Merely because there was some animosity between PWl and accused 
persons, that cannot be a ground to discard his evidence when it is credible 
and cogent. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses more than strengthen 
the evidence of PWl. They have graphically described the scenario as to 
how the accused persons were armed with weapons, pelted stones, chased 
the deceased, assaulted him, came back and assaulted PWl. That being H 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A the position, the p

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