SUKHAN RAUT AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 28-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
SUKHAN RAUT AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
NOVEMBER 28, 2001 
[R.P. SETHI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 149, 34, 302, 147 and 148-Commission of 
of.fence by unlawful assembly in prosecution ~f common object-Liability of-
C 
Murder committed pursuant to the common object offorcibly dispossessing the 
deceased and others by members of unlawful assembly-Such members cannot 
be said to have the common object ~f committing murder. 
Common object tuul common intention-Distinction between. 
D 
According to the prosecution, deceased alongwith one 'ff' was plough-
ing land when the accused appellants including appellant No. 1 armed with 
weapons came on the spot and started ploughing. 'H' protested and on the 
direction of appellant No. 1, one 'B' gave a blow on the head of the 
deceased in consequence of which he died. Thereafter the appellants 
E 
alongwith 'B' were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 
also Sections 148, 147 and 323 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to 
imprisonment for life. High Court confirmed the order. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Appellants contended that the common object was only with respect 
to forcibly dispossessing the deceased and others and not for committing 
murder. 
Respondent submitted that as murder was committed in furtherance 
of the common object of dispossessing the deceased it has to be inferred 
that the appellants were aware of the ultimate offence of murder. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
F 
G 
HELD : 1. Section 149 IPC makes the members of an unlawful 
H 
359 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
assembly vicariously liable where it is proved that the offence is committed 
in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly which the 
members of the unlawful assembly knew that such offence was likely to be 
committed in prosecution of the object of the unlawful assembly. Once it 
is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not 
B 
necessary that all'persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown 
to have committed some overt act for the purposes of incurring the vicari-
ous liability for the offence committed by a member of such unlawful 
assembly. [362-F-H] 
C 
2. Appellant No. 1 is proved to have instigated 'B' for giving the blow 
D 
to the deceased in consequence of which he died. It is established beyond 
any doubt that Appellant No.1 and 'B' shared the common intention 
though not common object at the time when the blow was caused on the 
head of the deceased. Therefore, Appellant No. 1 is guilty of common of 
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code and 
is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. [364-E; Fl 
3. 'B' on being instigated by appellant No. 1 inflicted injury on the 
person of the deceased despite the fact that all the members of the unlawful 
assembly were allegedly armed with weapons like lathis. When, after 
E 
receiving the blow the deceased started fleeing towards south, then also no 
member of the unlawful assembly prevented him or in any another way 
facilitated the accomplishment of the crime of murder committed by 'B' 
on the orders of appellant No. 1. One of the appellants is stated to have 
thrown a stone on the chest of the deceased but the allegation stands belied 
F 
from the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Thus there is 
no basis to hold in view of the attending circumstances at the time of 
commission of the offence that the members of the unlawful assembly had 
the common object of committing the murder of the deceased in prosecu-
tion of the common object of committing the criminal trespass. Also there 
G 
is no sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the same 
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the other appellants are convicted 
only for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 323 read with 
section 149 of the Code and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone 
by them. 
H 
[363-F; G; H; 364-A; C; D; G; H] 
..
•
SUKHAN RAUT v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 
361 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 135 
A 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and O•der dated 23.4.99 of the Patna High Court in 
Cr!. A. No. 511 and 518 of 1986. 
P.S. Mishra, Vishnu Sharma, Chandrashekhar Singh, Upendra Mishra, 
B 
Tathagat Harshvardhan, Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellants. 
Silket Singh, for D.B. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court delivered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.