PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40483
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1425-1426 of 2007
State of Rajasthan …Appellant
Shiv Charan & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned
judgment and order dated 20.9.2005, passed by the High Court
of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur (Jaipur Bench) in D.B.
Criminal Appeal Nos.1454 and 1458 of 2002, by way of which,
the High Court has converted the conviction of the respondents
herein, from one under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC’) and Section 148 IPC
to another under Section 323 IPC, and the sentence awarded byPage 2
the Sessions Court to life imprisonment with fine, has also been
substituted by a sentence of one year.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:
A. A complaint was submitted by Batti Lal (PW.1) in the Police
Station, Bamanwas on 28.8.2000 at about 9 a.m., that on the said day,
his brother Prahlad (since deceased), had been grazing buffaloes. The
respondents herein alongwith one Mahesh, absconder, had attacked
Prahlad and inflicted injuries on his person. Mahesh had hit Prahlad
on the head with a rod, whereas the respondents had inflicted injuries
with lathis. Kedar-accused had tried to push Prahlad to crush him
under the tractor driven by the accused, but could not succeed.
Prahlad had then been taken to the local hospital, from where he was
referred to Jaipur Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries while in
B. On the basis of the said report, a case under Sections 147, 148,
149 and 302 IPC was registered against the respondents and Mahesh,
absconder, and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body
of Prahlad was performed. The respondents were arrested. All
necessary memos were drawn up, and upon completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents.
However, the investigation against Mahesh remained pending, as he
had been absconding.
C. The trial commenced. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses
in support of its case. The respondents were examined under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as `the Cr.P.C.’). They not only pleaded innocence but also examined
one witness in defence. Upon completion of the trial, the learned
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondents as has been
referred to hereinabove.
D. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred criminal appeals before
the High Court, which were allowed vide impugned judgment and
Hence, these appeals.
3. Shri Ajay Veer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State,
has submitted, that in light of the grievous injuries found on the body
of Prahlad (deceased), which are undeniably homicidal in nature, the
case certainly did not warrant the conversion of the conviction of the
respondents from under Sections 302/149/148 IPC, to one under
Section 323 IPC. There was sufficient evidence on record to show
that the respondents were the aggressors, and the mere pendency of
the cross case before the Trial Court should not give leverage to the
High Court to take such a lenient view. Therefore, the appeals
deserve to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Shri G.K. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has submitted, that the High Court has appreciated the
entire evidence in correct perspective, and upon realising that it was a
free fight, has held that it was not possible to determine, who were the
actual aggressors? The view taken by the High Court does not require
any interference whatsoever. Thus, the appeals lack merit and are
liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Post-mortem on the body of Prahlad, deceased, was conducted
by the team/Board consisting of Dr. N.K. Meena and Dr. Ramesh
Chand Gupta (PW.9). The report (Ex.P-14), revealed the following
(1) “Lacerated wound 3” x ½” x bone deep – Mid of scalp.
(2) Contusion 2” x ½” (Rt.) wrist joint of both bones.
(3) Abrasion ½ x ½ on front of Rt. ear.
(4) Multiple linear abrasion on the left lower limb.
In the opinion of the Doctors, the cause of death was shock due
to injury on scalp leading to brain hemorrhage.
7. The injuries found on the person of respondent Shiv Charan
were as follows:
(1) Abrasion with swelling on Lt. Hand dorsal aspect of palms at
1 cm below junction of little finger.
(2) Abrasion with swelling of Rt. Side parietal region at skull.
(3) Complaint of pain whole back with injury.
8. The injuries found on the person of respondent Kedar were as
(1) Lacerated wound on Rt. Parietal region on skull. Scalp deep
soft clotted blood, 5 cm x ½ cm.
(2) Lacerated wound on center of skull soft clotted blood 4 cm x
½ cm scalp deep.
(3) Complaint of Pain Lt. Parietal region with swelling 2 cm x 2
(4) Complaint of pain Rt. Arm.
9. Ramdhan Meena (PW.2) has deposed that while Prahlad had
been grazing the buffaloes in the morning, Mahesh, armed with an
iron rod, alongwith the co-accused – respondents, who were armed
with lathis, had come there. They all started abusing Prahlad. Mahesh
had inflicted a blow on the head of Prahlad with an iron rod, and Shiv
Charan had hit him with a lathi on the left side of the face. Nehru had
then pushed Prahlad in front of the tractor driven by the accusedrespondents, to crush him under it, but could not succeed. Prahlad,
injured, had then been taken to a hospital in Jaipur, but died on the
This witness was declared hostile, as he did not support the case
of the prosecution.
10. Khushi Chand (PW.5), deposed that Prahlad (deceased), had
been grazing buffaloes. The respondents, alongwith Mahesh had come
there on a tractor. They had started quarrelling with Prahlad.
Mahesh had first assaulted Prahlad on the head with an iron rod, and
thereafter, the respondents herein had assaulted Prahlad with lathis.
The witnesses had tried to save Prahlad, but the accused had fled in
their tractor by road after beating him. Prahlad had then been taken to
the Gangapur Hospital in a cart, after which he had been referred to
Jaipur Hospital. He died on the way.
11. Gopal (PW.4) and Phool Chand (PW.7), had given the same
version of events, as they had also been grazing their buffaloes/cattles
alongwith Prahlad (deceased).
12. Dr. Shiv Singh Meena (PW.15), who had examined Prahlad in
his injured condition, has proved the injuries on his person.
Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta (PW.9), who was the member of the
board, which conducted the postmortem, deposed that the layer
around the brain had been fractured. There was fracture in his right
parietal bone, and fractures on the right radius and alina bone. In his
opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage inside the brain. The
injury found on the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause death
in the normal course of nature.
13. Jitendra Jain (PW.12), the Investigating Officer, proved all the
recoveries, and answered all questions relating to the investigation.
He also admitted that a cross case had been registered by the
respondents in regard to the very same incident, against the
complainant party, as accused Kedar and Shiv Charan had also
sustained injuries in the said incident.
14. The Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record
and has thereafter, rejected the version of Shiv Charan and Kedar,
that they had received injuries as referred to in the cross case, while
acting in self-defence. The court has also rejected the theory of grave
and sudden provocation, and also that the quarrel had taken place
suddenly, and that maar-peet had started without any previous
intention or planning. In the instant case, the previous enmity
between the parties on mortgaging the land also stood established.
Considering the gravity of the injuries and the evidence on record, the
Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the respondents as has been
referred to hereinabove.
15. The High Court while deciding the appeals, has taken the
following circumstances into consideration:
(i) The fatal injury on the head of Prahlad (deceased), has been
attributed to Mahesh, the absconding accused;
(ii) The informant Batti Lal, was not an eye witness to the
incident, and who got the FIR registered on the basis of
(iii) The injuries sustained by the accused, particularly by
accused Kedar, suggest that the complainant party had in
fact been aggressors; and
(iv) A cross case was registered against the complainant party
and the same was pending.
The High Court came to the conclusion after taking into
consideration the number of injuries suffered by the accused Kedar
and Shiv Charan, that an inference could easily be drawn to the effect
that there had been some soft pedaling in the investigation, and that
the prosecution had not revealed the genesis of the incident. The High
Court, thus, very abruptly reached the conclusion that as there had
been no meeting of minds just prior to the incident, or even at the time
of incident, the respondents were responsible for their individual acts.
Since a fatal injury had been found on the head of the deceased, which
had been attributed to be caused by co-accused Mahesh, an absconder,
the conviction and sentences were altered as referred to hereinabove.
16. The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC has its
foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its
application. It contains essentially only two ingredients, namely, (I)
offence committed by any member of any unlawful assembly
consisting five or more members and; (II) such offence must be
committed in prosecution of the common object (Section 141 IPC) of
the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary
that for common object there should be a prior concert as the common
object may be formed on spur of the moment. Common object would
mean the purpose or design shared by all members of such assembly
and it may be formed at any stage. Even if the offence committed is
not in direct prosecution of the common object of the unlawful
assembly, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it is
established that the offence was such, as the members knew, was
likely to be committed. For instance, if a body of persons go armed to
take forcible possession of the land, it may be presumed that someone
is likely to be killed, and all the members of the unlawful assembly
must be aware of that likelihood and, thus, each of them can be held
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC. The court
must keep in mind the distinction between the two parts of Section
149 IPC, and, once it is established that unlawful assembly had a
common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the
unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act,
rather they can be convicted for vicarious liability. However, it may
be relevant to determine whether the assembly consist of some
persons which were merely passive witnesses and had joined the
assembly as a matter of ideal curiosity without intending to entertain
the common object of the assembly. However, it is only the rule of
caution and not the rule of law. Thus, a mere presence or association
with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold
everyone of them criminally liable for the offence committed by the
others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each
intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an
offending act, being a member of unlawful assembly as provided for
under Section 142 IPC. It may also not be a case of group rivalry or
sudden or free fight or an act of the member of unlawful assembly
beyond the common object. (Vide: Baladin & Ors. v. State of U.P.,
AIR 1956 SC 181; Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202;
Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC
1836; Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 169;
Ramachandran & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 3581;
Onkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273; Roy
Farnandez v. State of Goa & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1030; and
Krishnappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2946).
17. Thus, for resorting to the provisions of Section 149 IPC, the
prosecution has to establish that (i) there was an assembly of five
persons; (ii) the assembly had a common object; and (iii) the said
common object was to consist one or more of the five illegal objects
specified in Section 141 IPC.
There is evidence on record to show that all the respondents
had, in fact, come together on a tractor. They had started abusing
Prahlad (deceased). Mahesh, absconding accused, had hit Prahlad
(deceased), with an iron rod, on his head, and the respondentsaccused had also hit him with lathis. Even after inflicting first injury
on the head by Mahesh, beating by the present respondents went on
and thereafter, the accused ran away. Therefore, in light of such a
fact-situation, it is clear that 5 persons had come fully armed, in a
vehicle and all of them caused injuries to Prahlad, who succumbed to
such injuries. Here, it is actually a case where common object of
unlawful assembly stood translated into action and members of the
assembly succeeded in their mission. Thus, the view taken by the
High Court that the respondents are liable for the acts attributed to
them individually and not collectively, being perverse is not worth
18. The High Court has committed an error in presuming that the
case was one where a free fight had occurred, and therefore, the
provisions of Sections 148 and 149 IPC were not attracted; the
complainant party were aggressors; and there had been some soft
pedaling in the investigation. Such findings are based on no evidence
whatsoever, and hence, are held to be perverse.
19. So far as the injuries found on the person of accused Shiv
Charan and Kedar are concerned, the injuries of Shiv Charan are
merely abrasions. Dr. M.K. Meena (DW.1) opined that as injuries
found on the person of Kedar could be caused by fall on stone and
some of his injuries were of superficial nature. The Trial Court dealt
with issue of injuries suffered by the said accused by making
reference to the statement of Mohanlal (DW.2), who had stated that
all the accused persons were going on a tractor to attend a claim case.
The said witness was also with them and when they reached near
Bandawal, 6-7 persons surrounded the tractor and stopped it. They
started beating Kedar and Shiv Charan and caused injuries to them.
In fact, this has been a consistent case of all the accused persons
while their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. None
of the accused has explained how the injuries were caused to Prahlad
(deceased). The Trial Court appreciated the evidence and came to
conclusion that the respondents-accused were the aggressive party and
they were five in numbers and all of them were armed. Thus, the High
Court could not be justified in reversing the findings of fact recorded
by the Trial Court without making reference to any evidence.
20. Non-explanation of serious injuries on the person of accused
may be fatal to the prosecution case. But where the injuries sustained
by the accused are minor in nature, even in absence of proper
explanation of prosecution, story of the prosecution cannot be
disbelieved. (Vide: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11
21. This Court considered the issue in Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 79 and held as under:
“38. The question, raised before this Court for its
consideration, is with respect to the effect of nonexplanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons.
In this regard, this Court has taken a consistent view that
the normal rule is that whenever the accused sustains
injury in the same occurrence in which the complainant
suffered the injury, the prosecution should explain the
injury upon the accused. But, it is not a rule without
exception that if the prosecution fails to give explanation,
the prosecution case must fail.
39. Before the non-explanation of the injuries on the
person of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses, may
be held to affect the prosecution case, the Court has to
be satisfied of the existence of two conditions:
(i) that the injuries on the person of the accused were
also of a serious nature; and
(ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the
time of the occurrence in question.
40. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and
creditworthy; and where the court can distinguish the
truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries on
the person of the accused are not explained by the
prosecution cannot, by itself, be the sole basis to reject
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
consequently, the whole case of the prosecution.
Reference in this regard can be made to Rajender Singh
v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298, Ram Sunder Yadav
v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 365 and Vijayee Singh v.
State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190.”
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the High Court
has not considered the issue of non-explanation of injuries on the
person of accused in correct perspective.
22. In view of above, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The
judgment and order impugned before us is set aside and the judgment
and order of the Trial Court is restored. The respondents are directed
to surrender within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gangapur City, is
directed to take them into custody and send them to jail to serve the
remaining part of the sentence. A copy of the order be sent to the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gangapur City, for
information and compliance.
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]
July 1, 2013