2002 (4) TMI 939 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Presence of appellants and existence of common object under Section 149 IPC.
2. Reliability of prosecution witnesses.
3. Conviction and sentencing of appellants under various sections of IPC and Arms Act.
4. Applicability of Section 149 IPC in the context of common object and vicarious liability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Presence of Appellants and Existence of Common Object under Section 149 IPC:
The appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove their presence and the existence of a common object within the meaning of Section 149 IPC. They argued that except for appellant Manoj Kumar, no other accused could be convicted or sentenced for the deaths of the deceased persons. Even if the appellants were present at the scene, they claimed they were mere bystanders and not sharing any common object. However, the court found that the appellants, along with 300-400 persons, attacked the house of Ganesh Singh with deadly weapons, resulting in the deaths of six individuals. The court held that the presence of the appellants and their participation in the attack indicated a common object to commit murder and arson, thus attracting Section 149 IPC.

2. Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses:
The appellants argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested parties and their testimonies were unreliable. The court, however, found no reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses, namely Dhananjay Kumar (PW1), Neelam Devi (PW2), Narendra Singh (PW3), Balwanti Div (PW4), and Ganesh Singh (PW5). The trial court and the High Court critically examined their statements and concluded that they were truthful witnesses. The court emphasized that the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased did not disqualify their testimonies, as they were natural witnesses expected to be present at the scene.

3. Conviction and Sentencing of Appellants under Various Sections of IPC and Arms Act:
The trial court convicted Hirdaya Singh @ Dhirendra Singh (A-2) and Manoj Kumar Gautam (A-11) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to death. Other accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also convicted under Sections 148, 436, and 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but no separate sentences were awarded. The High Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences of A-2 and A-11 to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the convictions and sentences.

4. Applicability of Section 149 IPC in the Context of Common Object and Vicarious Liability:
The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish a common object among the accused. The court clarified that Section 149 IPC deals with vicarious liability, where a person can be convicted for being a member of an unlawful assembly with a common object, even if they did not participate in the crime. The court noted that common object does not require prior concert and can develop after the assembly. In this case, the appellants' attack with deadly weapons and petrol bombs indicated a common object to commit murder, thus attracting Section 149 IPC. The court dismissed the appellants' reliance on judgments where common object was negated due to lack of evidence of the accused being armed or sharing the common object.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants, finding no merit in the appeals. The court emphasized that the appellants' presence and participation in the attack demonstrated a common object to commit murder, justifying their convictions under Section 149 IPC. The reliability of prosecution witnesses and the established common object were key factors in affirming the judgments of the lower courts.