Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.149 and s.147, 148, 323, 342, 450 – FIR lodged by Informant-PW-2 that his cousin was fatally assaulted – 17 persons including the appellants were tried for the offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 323, 342 & 450 and u/s.302 r/w.149, IPC – Found guilty by the Trial Court – High Court in appeals by all the accused persons affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.457-458 of 2016 filed by
9 accused before Supreme Court wherein no ground was found for interference with respect to 5 petitioners – As regards the present appellants (four accused persons), held: In a crime committed by an unlawful assembly, by principle of vicarious liability, every member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of the offence, even if he himself had not done the actual act – But the facts must indicate with clarity that such person was in fact member of the unlawful assembly – Prosecution did not allege that any of the appellants had stormed inside the house and had dragged PW-2’s cousin – Their presence, at best, going by the version of PWs 2 and
4 (deceased’s son) was outside the house in the street where 25-30 persons had gathered – Out of such gathering, 17 persons were named to be accused and sent for trial – PW-2 in his FIR had not named any of the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the names of the appellants did occur, however even then he did not attribute any overt act to the appellants – PW-3 (deceased’s widow) also did not name any of the appellants – Evidence of PW-4 did indicate some role but that part of the assertion is to be seen in the light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by PW-3 as soon as the first part of the transaction occurred and some 7 persons stormed inside the house – This is perhaps why PW-3 also could not name any of the appellants – Not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which they were tried – Benefit of doubt granted to the appellants – Acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In a crime committed by an unlawful assembly by principle of vicarious liability, every member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of the offence, even if he himself had not done the actual act. But the facts must indicate with clarity that such person was in fact a member of the unlawful assembly. The prosecution did not allege that any of the appellants had stormed inside the house and had dragged the deceased Parasram. The presence of the appellant, at best, going by the version of PWs 2 and 4 was outside the house in the street where 25-30 persons had gathered. Out of such gathering, 17 persons were named to be accused and sent up for trial. It is crucial to note that PW-2 in his First Information Report had not named any of the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the names of the appellants did occur in his testimony. Even then he did not attribute any overt act to the appellants. PW-3 also did not name any of the appellants. The evidence of PW-4 did indicate some role but that part of the assertion is required to be seen in the light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by their mother as soon as the first part of the transaction had occurred and some
7 persons had stormed inside the house. This is perhaps why the mother also could not name any of the appellants. [Paras 10, 11][252-H; 253-A-D]
1.2 It is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which they were tried. Therefore, benefit of doubt granted to the appellants. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. [Para 12][253-E]
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.