LexSURENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. [2023] 3 S.C.R. 354 354 SURENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2023) APRIL 11, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – s.149 – Applicability of – High Court set aside the respondent-accused’s conviction for the offence punishable u/s.302/149, IPC on the ground that the initial charge- sheet was filed only against two accused persons (one of them being the respondent) and the remaining three persons were subsequently arrayed as the accused and are being tried separately thus, s.149, IPC shall not be attracted – Held: When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and are facing the trial though separately, s.149 IPC would be attracted – Thus, once the respondent was found to be member of the unlawful assembly and he actually participated in commission of the offence, then he shall also be liable to be convicted for the offence u/s.302, IPC with the aid of s.149, IPC, even for the act of the another accused who gave the fatal blow – High Court erred in observing that no case is made out to invoke s.149, IPC – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Judgment of the Trial Court convicting the respondent for offences u/ss. 147, 323 and 302/149, IPC restored – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319. Criminal Law – Delay in lodging FIR – Plea of the accused that there was delay of 3 ½ days in lodging FIR – Held: Delay sufficiently explained – No reason to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Penal Code, 1860 – s.147 – Application of – Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The High Court has not properly considered the fact that in the report/FIR there were specific allegations against five accused persons and five accused persons were named in the FIR. However, the investigating officer charge- sheeted only two persons. The remaining three accused persons A B C D E F G H 355 came to be added as accused by the learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As they absconded and therefore their trial came to be ordered to be separated and it is reported that the trial against the remaining accused is still pending who are also facing the charges for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. In that view of the matter when five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted. The essential question in a case under Section 147 is whether there was an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141, I. P. C., of five or more than five persons. The identity of the persons comprising the assembly is a matter relating to the determination of the guilt of the individual accused, and even when it is possible to convict less than five persons only, Section 147 still applies, if upon the evidence in the case the Court is able to hold that the person or persons who have been found guilty were members of an assembly of five or more persons, known or unknown, identified or unidentified. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has seriously erred in observing that no case is made out to invoke Section 149 IPC. [Paras 10, 10.1][361-A-C, F-H; 362-A] Bharwad Mepa Dana & Anr. Vs. State of Bombay 1960 (2) SCR 172 – relied on. 1.2 Once the respondent – accused was found to be member of the unlawful assembly of more than five persons and he actually participated in commission of the offence may be the fatal blow might have been given by the another accused, in the present case ‘BS’, still with the aid of Section 149 IPC, Respondent Accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The case would certainly fall within first part of Section 149 IPC. As per first part of Section 149 IPC if an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. [Para 10.2][362-B-C] Mizaji and Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 940 – relied on. SURENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. A B C D E F G H 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1.3 The submission on behalf of the accused that there was a delay of 3 ½ days has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the learned trial Court in detail. A proper explanation has been given by the complainant.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.