LexSTATE OF U.P. versus MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
418
STATE OF U.P.
v.
MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.
October 16, 1974
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND R..S. SARKARIA, JJ.)
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 <if 1860;~ss. 141 and 149, Scope of.
Practice- Sentence- Interference by Supreme' Court with order of acquittal of
High Court.
Eighteen persons were char~ed with various offences arising out of five murders.
The trial court found, that there was dispute between the party of the accused and
the party of the deceased regarding the right to take water from a tubewell; that one
of the accused party was !!,ppointed as Thokdar to regulate the distribution of water;
that on the day of the occurrence 1he acx:used pa11y consistini: of over 20 armed per-
sons, went to the field and the Thokdar ordered his compamons to divert the water
from the field of one of the members of the decc:ased party ; that on an objection
. being raised by members of the deceased party the accused opened fire as a result
of which four persons died instantaneously and a fifth was injured, that the four
dead bodies were then dragged to some distance, the injured pc:rson was forced to
walk, the dead bodies were decapitated and limbs severed, the injured person was
hacked to death, II fire was lit, and the five dead bodies were thrown into the fire;
and that the severed heads were carried away by the accused as trophies. On these
findings the trial ~ourt convicted nine accused for offences under ss. 302 and 201
read withs. 149 J.P. C., another accused under s. 201 read withs. 149 I. P. C., and
acquitted the other eight. On appeal, the High Court, on the b3!:is that the Thokdar
could regulate thi; distribution of water and was entitled to enforce his authority
in such manner apd by such means as he thought proper, held, that the common
object of the a5$CI11bly was to redivert the water if necessary by use of force and tl:iat
the Thokdar and his followers had armed themselves with guns and other weapons
only for carrying 'out that object and not for the purpose of committing murder,
and that therefore\ they did not form an unlawful assembly. The High Court accep-
ted the evidence of motive and found that the actual number of persons who took
part in the inciderlt must have been considerably more than five and that all those
who took part in the incident also took part in dragging the dead bodies and in the
attempt to do away with the evidence of murder, but convicted only one out of the
nine persons convicted by the trial court for murder, and convicted five others for
offences under s. ~01 read withs. 149 J. P. C.
In the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (I) Under s. 149, every member of an unlawful assembly is liable
for the offence committed by any member of the assembly in prosecution of its
common object. Such vicarious liability is not limited to the acts done in prosecution
of the common object of the assembly, but extends even to acts which the members
of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that common
obj{ct. On the findings of the High Court the assembly was undoubtedly an unlawful
assembly as provided by s. 141, fourth paragraph, J. P. C. Under the Explanation
to s. 141, an assembly which was not un'awful when it assembled may subsequently
become an unlawful assembly. The conclusion is also unavoidable that the members
of the assembly knew that the pro!>ecution of even. the limited object of the assembly
was likely to result in the·murder of the members of the opposite party. If the accu-
sed were members of the unlawful assembly and had taken a leadinl! part either in
the first or the final stage of the incident they cannot escape their liability for the
five murders. There was but one unlawful assembly and its merrb~rs were animated
by a unity of purpose. Whether one did thi~ or that act, there was identity of interest
among the members of the unlawful a~:mbly and they were actuated by a common
object. Hence the five accuied, who were convicted by the High Court of the offences
under s. 201 read withs. 149 should also be convicted under s. 302 J. P. C. read with
s. 14.9. [421 H-423 E]
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
u. p, STATE v. MAHENDRA SINGH (Chandrachud, /.)
4 U
(~) As reg~rds sentence, three ~f them ~ad taken part in the decapitation and
throwing the dismembered bodies mto the fire. Tfley, were the more ·prominent
members of the unl~wful .assembly and without theit actiye participation the assembly
could not have achieExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.