STATE OF PUNJAB versus SANJIV KUMAR@ SANJU AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 14-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
~ 
) 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
SANJIV KUMAR@ SANJU AND ORS. 
JUNE 14, 2007 
[DR. ARJJIT PASAYAT AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 149----Common object-Meaning and scope of-Difference between 
'common object' and 'common intention '-Explained-On facts, the view of C 
the High Court that there wqs no evidence with regard to sharing of common 
object by the respondents does not suffer from any infirmity. 
ss. 3021149 and 3231149-Nine persons convicted by trial court-High 
Court acquitting six of them holding that there was no evidence to show that D 
these persons shared the common object-Held : High Court's judgment 
directing acquittal of these six persons suffers from no infirmity. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression 'common object' and 'knew' occurring in s. 149 !PC- E 
Connotation of 
The six respondents and their three other companions (all the nine 
accused, A-1 to A-9), were prosecuted for offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 
and 323/149 IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused and the 
complainant party went on a pleasure trip to a hill station. There they had F 
some joint photographs which came to be in possession of A-7. A dispute arose 
between the parties regarding possession of the photographs. On the day of 
occurrence an altercation in this regard took place between the accused 
persons on the one side and the complainant party on the other. It is stated 
that at that point of time A-3 and A-5 gave an exhortation, whereupon A-7 
gave a 'Kirpan' blow on the flank of'H' and A-6 gave a 'Kirpan' blow on chest G 
of'R'. Both of them fell down. PW 5 and PW 6 raised an alarm. Thereupon, 
A-1 further gave a 'Kirpan' blow on 'R' while A 4 gave a 'Hockey' blow on 
him 'H' died at the spot and 'R' succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. 
The trial court convicted all the nine accused of the charges. On appeal, the 
1025 
H 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
High Court found that no definite role was ascribed to the respondents and 
there was no evidence with regard to sharing of common object by them and, 
therefore, acquitted them. However, conviction of A-6 and A-7 was upheld and 
that of A-1 was converted to one u/s. 324 IPC 
In the appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the six accused-
B 
respondents, it was contended for the appellant that presence of the acquitted 
accused at the place of occurrence was accepted by the trial court and the 
High Court and thus, their conviction with the aid of s. 149 was clearly in 
order and the High Court should not have interfered therewith. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first part of the 
section means that the offence to be committed. in prosecution of the common 
: . object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common 
object In order that the offence may fall within the first part, the offence must 
tie connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly 
D of which the accused was member. Even if the offence committed is not in 
direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under 
Section 141, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew 
was likely to be committed and this is what is required in the second part of 
the section. The purpose for which the members of the assembly sef out or 
E 
desired to achieve is the object If the object desired by all the members is the 
same, the knowledge, that is, the object which is being pursued is shared by 
all the members and they are in general agreement as to how it is to be 
achieved and that is now the common object of the assembly. 
[Para 10) (1030-F, G, H; 1031-A) 
F 
1.2. The word 'knew' used in the second limb ofs. 149 implies something 
more than a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of 'might have 
been known'. Positive knowledge is necessary. When an offence is committed 
in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which 
the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in 
prosecution of the common object. [Para 10) (1031-C, DJ 
G 
Chikkarange Gowda and Ors. v. State of Mysore, AIR (1955) I SC 731; 
Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202; Lalji v. State of UP., 
[1989) 1 sec 437, relied on. 
l.3. A common object may be formed at any stage by all or a few members 
H of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it Once formed, 
I 
i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.