Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 149 – Appellants alongwith
70 other accused persons were accused of murdering the Managing Director of a company in which they were working – Prosecution examined three eye witnesses who identified the appellants – Trial Court convicted appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held : On considering the disposition of the eye witnesses nothing is forthcoming that appellants caused any injury to the deceased and participated in any manner in commission of the offence – There were some disputes with respect to wages and appellants were present at the incident site as office bearers of the labour union – It has come on record that appellant-Chaitu Gowda told something to the labourers in their own language following which the labourers became very agitated – But nothing on record what was uttered by the accused – In absence of any concrete evidence, the appellants cannot be convicted u/s.302 IPC with the aid of s.149 IPC – Impugned judgment of High Court and trial court quashed and set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: On considering deposition of the eye witnesses, PW3, PW4 and PW6, nothing is forthcoming that the appellants caused any injury on the deceased and/or participated in any manner in commission of the offences for which they are convicted. If the entire evidence and the deposition of the eye witnesses are scanned, it appears that in fact the appellants were present there as office bearers of the Union. There were some disputes with respect to wages. Even as per the deposition of PW3, on being called, the appellants entered into the office room but soon both of them came out and told the assembled labourers that the Managing Director would distribute their dues and asked them to go to the place where dues were to be distributed. Despite the same, the labourers protested that they would not accept anything other than the full dues and they started shouting. The other labourers – co-accused snatched the carbine of the PSO and to that the deceased – Managing Director asked the appellant – Chaitu Gowala as to why the weapon of PW3 was snatched, he being a public servant. It has come on record that on this, the appellant – Chaitu Gowala told something to the labourers in their own language following which the labourers became very agitated. Nothing is on record what was uttered by the accused – Chaitu Gowala. Therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence that the appellants attacked and/or caused any injury to the deceased and/or even the PSO and in absence of any evidence what was uttered by the appellants – accused in their own language and in absence of any evidence that the appellants instigated the labourers – others co-accused, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The conviction of the appellants, for the offences for which they are convicted is unsustainable. [Para 5][193-B-H; 194-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.