Penal Code, 1860 – ss.143, 147, 153A, 295, 436, 332 – Large rioting crowd comprising of over a thousand people – Six accused-appellants arrested from the crime scene (originally 7 persons were arrested, one died during the trial) – High Court reversed their acquittal holding them to be part of the unlawful assembly – Correctness:
Held: High Court erred in reversing the order of acquittal of the appellants – In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of his liberty – In such type of cases, the courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses making general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him – In the instant case, the appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating – Their arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of their culpability – No evidence that at the time of arrest they were carrying instruments of destruction or any inflammable substance, etc, having potential to cause damage to property or person – Except the statement of PW-2 and PW4, which was rightly discarded by the High Court, no specific evidence that the appellants indulged in any act of incitement, mischief or violence – Mere presence of the appellants at the spot, or their arrest therefrom, was not sufficient to prove that they were a part of the unlawful assembly comprising of more than a thousand people – Impugned order set aside, order of the Trial Court restored. [Paras 10, 14, 16-18]
Criminal Law – Riots/group clashes involving large number of persons – Duty of Courts as regards bystanders – Bystanders not to be convicted as a part of the unlawful assembly relying upon the testimony of witnesses making general statements: Held: In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted – In such type of cases, the courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses making general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him – Where the assailants are large in number it may not be possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of them – It is not feasible to exhaustively lay down the list of circumstances from which an inference regarding the accused being part of the unlawful assembly be drawn – Courts have generally held the accused vicariously liable, with the aid of s.149 of the IPC, inter alia, (a) where he had proceeded to the scene of crime along with other members of the assembly carrying arms or instruments which could serve the object of the assembly; and (b) where he had participated in any manner in the events which serve the common object of the assembly – Very often when the scene of crime is a public place, out of curiosity, persons step out of their home to witness as to what is happening around – Such persons are no more than bystander though, to a witness, they may appear to be a part of the unlawful assembly – Thus, as a rule of caution and not a rule of law, where the evidence on record establishes the fact that a large number of persons were present, it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged – At times, in such cases, as a rule of caution and not a rule of law, the courts have adopted a plurality test, that is, the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by a certain number of witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident – Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assault the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them must take part in the actual assault – Therefore, in a situation like this, the Court ought to determine whether the accused put on trial was a part of the unlawful assembly or just a bystander – Such determination is inferential, based on the proven facts of the case. [Paras 13, 14]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.