SURENDRA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1168 · Decided: 28-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 1168 
SURENDRA AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Special Leave Petitoin (Crl.) No. 2874 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s. 3021149 - 'Common object' to cause the death - Held: 
Inference of common object has to be drawn from various 
factors such as the weapons with which the members were 
armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by 
them and the result - The prosecution, from the entirety of the . 
0 evidence, has been able to establish that all the members of 
the unlawful assembly acted in furtherance of the common 
object to cause the death of the victim. 
Four petitions in the instant special leave petitions 
along with another accused were prosecuted for 
E commission of offences punishable u/ss 147, 148 and 
302/149 IPC. The prosecution case was that a criminal 
litigation was pending between the three accused 
(appellants in SLP(Crl) No. 2874 of 2008) and the 
deceased. On the date of occurrence, they along with the 
F accused (appellant in SLP(Crl.) No. 3354 of 2008), who 
was their brother-in-law, and another accused waylaid the 
victim and assaulted him with 'burri', knife and 'lathis', as 
a result of which the victim died the following day. The 
trial court convicted all the five accused and sentenced 
G them to imprisonment for life u/s 3021149 IPC. Orders of 
conviction and sentence u/ss 147 and 148 were also 
.passed. The appeals filed by all the five accused were 
dismissed. 
H 
1168 
SURENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 
1169 
In the instant SLPs, it was contended for the 
A 
petitioners that from the injuries sustained by the 
deceased which cumulatively resulted in his death, it was 
evident that the accused did not act in prosecution of the 
common object to commit murder of the victim. It was 
further contendecl for the petitioner in SLP (Crl,) no. 3354 
B 
of 2008 that he was a resident of a different village and 
there was no enmity between the deceased and him and 
it could not be said that he acted in furtherance of the 
common object with the other accused to kill the victim. 
Dismissing the special leave petitions, the Court 
HELD: 
c 
lnthe first place, the motive for the crime has been 
established. There was criminal litigation pending 
0 
between the deceased and accused 'S', 'N' and 'Y'. The 
other accused 'A' is the bother-in-law of these three 
accused. The enmity between the deceased and the 
accused party stands proved. Secondly, all the five 
accused were armed with deadly weapons. Accused 'S' 
E 
and 'N' were armed with 'burri' and 'knife', respectively, 
and the other three with lathis. Accused 'S' at the time of 
incident, exhorted the other accused, to Kill the victim 
The attack by the accused party on the victim has been 
established to be pre-planned and pre- meditated. Thirdly, 
F 
the evidence of the doctor (PW-5), who conducted the 
autopsy on the dead body, would show that the 
deceased had fractured ribs - left 9th, 10th and right 10th 
and both the lungs of the deceased were lacerated and 
were found ruptured. The legal position is well 
established that inference of common object has to be 
G 
drawn from various factors such as the we:ipons with 
which the members were armed, their movements, the 
acts of violence committed by them and the result. The 
prosecution, from the entirety of the evidence, has been 
able to establish that all the members of the unlawful 
H 
1170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A assembly acted in furtherance of the common object to 
cause the death of the victim. The case of accused 'A' is 
not at all distinct from the case of the other accused. 
There is no error in consideration of the matter by the 
High Court. (para 13, 15 and 17] [1175-F.,H; 1176-A-D-G] 
B 
c 
Case Law Reference:. 
1979 (1) SCR 383 
held inapplicable para 7 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCC 515 
held inapplicable para 7 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (crl.) No: 
2874 of 2008. 
From the Judgmer.t & Order dated 14.11.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1123 
D of 1982. 
E 
F 
WITH 
SLP (crl.) No. 3354 of 2008. 
Nagendra Rai, P.H. Parekh, Subodh Markandeya, Baldev 
Atreya, J.N.S. Tyagi, R.K. Rathore, Renu Tyagi Rajiv Tyagi, 
Rajeev . Dubey, (for Kamlendra Mishr<J) fnr the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LOO HA, J. 1., Five persons namely; Surendra, 
Narendra, Yogesh all s/o Anoop Singh, Amar Pal s/o Jagpal 
S

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