SUKHA AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 05-04-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
Ajwil S 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SUKHA AND OTHERS 
ti. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 
[VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS a.nd 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.] 
[1956] 
Unlawful Assembly-
11Common intention" and "Common object" 
-Distinction-Duty of a Court of fact-Indian Penal Code (Act 
XLV of 1860), ss. 8!,, 149. 
Common intention reqnired by s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code 
and common object set out under s. 149, though they sometimes 
overlap, are used in different senses and should be kept distinct. In 
a case under s. 149 there need not be a prior concert and meeting of 
minds, it is enough that each has the same object in view and their 
number is five or more and they a.ct a.s an assembly to achieve that 
object. 
When a crowd assembles and there is e.n uproar and people are 
killed and injured, it is only natural for others to rush to the scene 
with whatever arms they can snatch. Some may have an unlawful 
motive but others may not, and in such circumstances it is impos-
sible to say that they were all motivated by a common intention 
with prior concert. What a court of fact should do in such a case is 
to find from the evidence which of them individually had an unlaw· 
ful object in view, or having originally a lawful object in view deve-
loped it later on into an unlawful one and if it finds that there were 
five or more such persons who acted together there would be an un· 
lawful assembly. 
Consequently, in a case where there were circumsta.nces from 
which the courts of fact could deduce that an unlawful object deve-
loped with more than fi"e to share it after the fighting started and 
they were satisfied that it did, there was no reason why their con· 
current decisions should be set aside. 
This court will be slow to entertain a question of prejudice 
when details are not furnished; also, the fact that the objection was 
not taken at an early stage will be taken into account. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 133 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 10th January 1955 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Jodhpur in Criminal Appeals Nos. 
57 & 83 of 1953 a.rising out of the judgment and 
order dated the 26th May 1953 of the Court of 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
289 
Sessions Judge at Merta in Criminal Original Case 
No. 1 of 1952. 
Jai Gopal Sethi, K. R. Krishnaswami and K. R. 
Ohaw1hry for the appellants. 
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, for the respon-
dent. 
1956. April 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BosE J.-Four persons were killed about ll p.m. 
on the night of the 21st July 1951 and a number of 
others injured. This was said to be the result of a 
riot that occurred in the village Dhankoli. Thirty 
six persons were committed for trial. Of these, two 
died during the course of the proceedings. The re-
mainder were all charged under section 325/149 of 
the Indian Penal Code and eleven were also charged 
under section 302/149. 
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted twenty five 
of the charge under section 325/149 and convicted 
nine. He acquitted all the eleven who were charged 
under section 302/149 but convicted nine of them 
under section 325/149. 
The State did not appeal against the acquittals of 
the twenty five under section 325/149 nor did it 
appeal against the acquittals of two of the eleven 
who were charged under section 302/149 but it 
appealed against the acquittals of the remaining nine 
who had been convicted under section 325/149. These 
nine convicts also appealed. The High Court there-
fore had two appeals before it, one against the 
acquittals of nine persons under section 302/149 and 
the other by the same persons against their convic-
tions under section 325/149. 
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the convicts 
and allowed that of the State. The convictions of 
these nine persons were accordingly altered to ones 
under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and 
the lesser sentence of transportation was given to 
each. 
It is admitted on both sides that there was bad 
1956 
Sukha and others 
v. 
The State of 
Rajasthan 
1956 
Sukha and others 
v. 
The State of 
Rajasthan 
Bose}. 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956) 
blood in the village Dhankoli between a caste known 
as Baories on one side and three other castes of the 
village namely, Jats, Dhobis and Khaties on the 
other. 
The case for the prosecution is that this was due 
to a dispute over a field that belonged to some of the 
Jats. There were some

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