Penal Code, 1860 – ss.148, 302, 307, 325 r/w. s.149 and s.449 – Murder – Complainant case was that seven persons (all accused) entered the under-construction house of the victimdeceased armed with deadly weapons and attacked the victim – All the accused hit the victim indiscriminately with their respective weapons – Consequent to which victim died – PW-7,8 also received injuries – FIR was registered – Trial Court convicted all the six accused persons u/ss. 148, 302, 307, 325 r/w. 149 IPC and s.449 IPC – One accused person (A-1) died during the Trial – High Court dismissed the appeals – Against the order of the High Court, A-2 and A-7 did not prefer appeal, however, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 preferred appeals before the Supreme Court – A-4 and A-6 contended that since no charges were framed u/s. 141 IPC, the unlawful assembly did not exist and therefore, s.149 IPC could not have been invoked – A-5, inter alia, made a plea of mistaken identity – Held: It has nowhere been said in the judicial pronouncements that s.141 IPC should be specifically invoked or else consequences would be fatal – As long as the necessary ingredients of an unlawful assembly are set out and proved, as enunciated in s. 141 IPC, it would suffice – The actions of an unlawful assembly and the punishments thereafter are set out in the subsequent provisions, after s.141 IPC, and as long as those ingredients are met, s. 149 IPC can be invoked – In the instant case, the A-1 (since deceased) not only inflicted a blow with a bahi, but also raised a lalkar that the deceased should be killed – All other accused also inflicted blows on the deceased – The common object was, thus, writ large on its face – Both the Courts below have found that version given by PW-7 and
8 evoked confidence, who were themselves injured in the incident – Insofar A-5 is concerned, PW-8 had identified him and all the other accused – Further, A-3, A-4, A-5 were arrested on the same day and recovery of weapons was also made due to disclosure statement of A-5 – Thus, plea of mistaken identity cannot be accepted – All four appeals by the accused dismissed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court is unable to come to a conclusion that there was any fatal flaw in the non-inclusion of Section 141 of the IPC while framing charges, as would render the complete trial illegal, or that it can result in a finding that there would be no occasion to invoke Section 149 of the IPC. A-4 and A-6 appears not to have appreciated the judicial pronouncements in the correct perspective, as what is necessary for invoking Section 149 of the IPC has been set out in these judgments. It has nowhere been said that Section 141 of the IPC should be specifically invoked or else the consequences would be fatal. As long as the necessary ingredients of an unlawful assembly are set out and proved, as enunciated in Section 141 of the IPC, it would suffice. The actions of an unlawful assembly and the punishment thereafter are set out in the subsequent provisions, after Section 141 of the IPC, and as long as those ingredients are met, Section 149 of the IPC can be invoked. [Para 21] [52-F-G; 53-A]
2. In the factual context, it is observed that whatever be the altercation or argument between a friend of deceased and the seven accused, it resulted in the seven accused armed with deadly weapons coming to the site of the incident, being the underconstruction house of the deceased, and all of them inflicting blows on the deceased. Accused no.1, since deceased, not only inflicted a blow with a bahi, but also raised a lalkar that the deceased should be killed. All the other accused also inflicted blows on the deceased. Even the interventions of PW-7 & PW-8 did not result in their desisting from such assault, but on the other hand, even PW-7 and PW-8 received injuries as a result thereof. This is not a case where the common assembly proceeded to the site and subsequently decided to inflict the blows. It is not as if anyone incidentally joined the group, but all of them came together with a clear intent and acted upon that intent. It was not as if any of the accused ran away from the site, or ceased to have the intent to inflict blows, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The common object is, thus, writ large on its face. There were, at least, 24 injuries inflicted on the deceased, and both the courts below have found that the version given by PW-7 and PW8 evoke confidence, who were themselves injured in the incident. Minor discrepancies were, thus, found to be a natural cause, where so many persons attacked suddenly. The accused were known to the eye-witnesses and, thus, there can be no case of mistaken identity. There was no unexplained delay in filing the FIR. There is no merit in the case sought to be made out on behalf of the accused Nos.4 & 6. [Paras 22, 27] [53-B-E; 54-E]
3. On examination of the pleas of A-5, this Court agrees that these discrepancies fall under what has been labeled by the High Court as ‘minor discrepancies’, more so in an incident of this nature, where all the accused were inflicting blows on the deceased, at tandem. PW-7 and PW-8 also became victims of this attack, when they tried to intervene. It would be difficult to accept that in such a situation, the narration should be absolutely exact, rather there should be a broad consistency in what transpired at the time of the incident. To accept the plea of A-5, which at first blush may seem to have some merit, on a deeper examination would amount to nit picking the testimony of the witnesses to somehow obtain an acquittal. This Court may also notice that there was no past enmity, which could be attributed against A-5 alone as to rope him in. In fact, the grievance of the deceased was about the collective behavior, in the past, of all the accused. This resulted in all the accused using the opportunity of a small verbal tiff with a friend of complainant and deceased, to come to the site of the incident, which was the under construction house of the deceased, to inflict the deadly blows on the deceased, culminating in his death. [Para 30] [55-C-E]
4. The testimony of PW-8 further shows that he had seen A-6 and other accused persons earlier when they had been identified to him, at that stage. It is in those circumstances that he identified all the accused. The fact also remains that A3, A-4 and A-5 were arrested on the same day, though A-6 was arrested subsequently. The recovery of weapons was also made due to the disclosure statement of A-5. Thus, this Court is not persuaded to accept the plea of mistaken identity, as sought to be advanced by A-5 , which is what is stated to be the real case distinguishing A-5 from other accused. [Para 32] [56-A-B]
5. Insofar as A-3 is concerned, all arguments of A-5 were adopted, except the argument about mistaken identity but then, that is the only plea of A-5, other than formally adopting the arguments of A-4 and A-6, which have already been rejected. [Para 33] [56-C]
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel &Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 743 : [2018] 6 SCR 1050 ; Dani Singh v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 203 : [2004]
2 SCR 1138 ; Mahadev Sharma v. State of Bihar (1966)
1 SCR 18 ; KuldipYadav v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC
324 : [2011] 5 SCR 186 – referred to.
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.