SUBRAN @ SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 24-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUBRAN @ SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. 
v. 
' 
STATE OF KERALA 
-
FEBRUARY 24, 1993 
B 
(M.N. VENKATACHALIAH CJ. 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
Section." 141, 149, 299, 300, 302 and 326-Unlawful assembly-What 
i:l'-Six accused charged with offences under section 302 read with section· 
149-Two acquitted-Effect of-Held other four being less than five would 
not be members of unlawful assembly-Where existence of unlawful assembly 
~
not proved conviction with aid of section 149 cannot be recorde<f-,Accused 
D 
cannot be convicted for offence with which not charged-Accused liable for 
offences committed individually. 
Six accused persons were arrayed by the investigating agency for 
offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323, 341, 148 read with 
Section 149 IPC, for an occurrence that took place on 24th December, 1986 
E . in which one Suku succumbed to injuries as a result of the assault during 
the occurrence. They were put on trial, and the prosecution sought to 
establish its case by examining as many as six eye-witnesses besides other 
e•idence, documentary and oral. 
~ 
According to the prosecution case, all the six accused persons were 
F 
armed with weapons like chopper, iron rod, knife, cycle chain and torches 
and that tile accused bad held PW .2 George and while the first accused -
kicked him, the third accused inflicted injuries on him with a cycle chain. 
So far as Suku deceased was concerned, all the accused except the first 
accused caused him injuries with a torch, a cycle chain and a knife. The 
>-
G 
first accus.ed was alleged to have caught hold of Suku by the collar and 
inflicted it1juries on his hands, arms and legs with a chopper. The assault 
took place in front of an arrack shop. It was alleged that enmity between 
the two groups on account of suspicion of information being passed on to 
the Excise Officials, regarding illicit distillation was the cause of the 
occurrence, but no evidence was led in support of this allegation and no .>-
H motive for commission of the crime was established at the trial. 
84 
-
SUBRAN @SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE 
85 
At the trial, four eye-witnesses PW.3, P.W.6, PW.7, the salesman and A 
his assistant in the arrack shop and PW .8 turned hostile and did not 
support the prosecution case. The prosecution case was sought to be 
proved by the ocular testimony of PW.4 and PW .S both aged about 13 
years, at the time of the occurrence and other evidence. Both these eye-wit· 
nesses supported their statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. 
during their testimony in Court. The trial court on the basis of prosecution 
evidence found accused No. 1, Sobran, guilty of an offence punishable 
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment 
B 
for life. Accused Nos •. 2 to 6, namely, Rajan, Preman, Viswan, Sura and 
Sbajan, were found guilty of an offence under Section 326/149 IPC and 
each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for C 
three years Besides, accused I to 4 were convicted for an offence under 
Section 148 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 
All the accused were also convicted for offences under Sections ·14, 341, 
323, 324 read with Section 149 IPCbut no separate sentences were-awarded 
on any of those counts. 
D 
On appeal to the High Court, the conviction and sentence awarded 
to accused 1 to 3 and 5 were confirmed, while accused 4 and 6 were 
acquitted and the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the 
Sessions Judge was set aside. The participation of the 6th accused and the 
role assigned to him by the prosecution was doubted by the Judges of the E, 
-~ 
High Court and he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Similarly, 
the High Court disbelieved the role assigned to accused No. 4 and doubted 
bis participation in the commission of the crime. 
-· 
The accused appealed to this Court by Special Leave. Aller prelimi· 
nary hearing it Was ordered that the appeal be beard on the limited 
question regarding the nature of the offence and the quantum of the 
sentence only. 
F 
On the question : Whether after the acquittal of the two accused, 
could the High Court Convict appellant No. 1 for the substantive offence G 
under Section 302 IPC • an offence with which be bad not been charged, 
and appellants 2 to 4 for an offence under section 326/149 IPC, 
Partially allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. A combined readiug of Section 141 

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