2004 (8) TMI 706 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that A-1 to A-6 alongwith A-9 (since deceased) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to commit the murder of the deceased?

Issues Involved:
1. Formation of unlawful assembly and common object.
2. Individual acts and participation of accused.
3. Conviction and sentencing under relevant sections of IPC.
4. Evaluation of evidence and witness testimonies.
5. Medical evidence and nature of injuries.
6. Motive behind the offense.
7. Appeals against acquittals and convictions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Formation of Unlawful Assembly and Common Object:
The High Court concluded that A-1 to A-6, along with A-9 (deceased), formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of the deceased. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized whether the common object was to commit murder or merely to cause grievous hurt. The Court found that the object was to cause grievous hurt, not murder, based on the nature of the injuries and other circumstances.

2. Individual Acts and Participation of Accused:
The trial court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found that only A-1 and A-2 assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death. A-3, A-4, and A-6 were found guilty of causing injuries to prosecution witnesses. A-5, A-7, and A-8 were acquitted due to insufficient evidence of their participation. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of A-5, A-7, and A-8, finding the evidence against them unreliable.

3. Conviction and Sentencing Under Relevant Sections of IPC:
The trial court convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 302 IPC, A-6 under Section 326 IPC, and A-3 and A-4 under Section 324 IPC. The High Court convicted A-1 to A-6 under Sections 302/149 IPC and 148 IPC, but the Supreme Court revised this, finding them guilty under Sections 326/149 IPC instead. A-1 and A-2 were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies:
The Supreme Court scrutinized witness testimonies and found inconsistencies. For instance, PW-2's deposition regarding A-6 and A-7 was not mentioned in the FIR, making it unreliable. Similarly, other witnesses' statements were found inconsistent with their testimonies under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The Court emphasized the importance of consistent and corroborated evidence.

5. Medical Evidence and Nature of Injuries:
The medical evidence indicated that the deceased suffered multiple injuries, none of which were individually sufficient to cause death. The injuries were cumulative, leading to death due to shock and hemorrhage. The Court noted that the serious injuries were caused by the blunt side of the axes, indicating an intent to cause grievous hurt rather than murder.

6. Motive Behind the Offense:
The alleged motive was a minor altercation 15 days prior, where the deceased's son assaulted A-1's younger brother. The Court found this motive flimsy and insufficient to infer a common object to commit murder. The relationship between the parties was cordial until the recent altercation, further weakening the motive for murder.

7. Appeals Against Acquittals and Convictions:
Several appeals were filed by the accused and the State. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, acquitting A-5 of all charges and modifying the convictions of A-1 to A-6 to Section 326/149 IPC. The sentences were adjusted accordingly, with A-1 and A-2 receiving five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment meticulously evaluated the evidence, witness testimonies, and medical reports to determine the appropriate charges and sentences. The Court concluded that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt, not murder, leading to the modification of the convictions and sentences of the accused.

← Previous Next →