2004 (3) TMI 795 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
2. Applicability of Section 149 IPC.
3. Distinction of accused Raj Pal's case from other acquitted accused.
4. Defense claims and alibis.
5. Evaluation of eyewitness testimony and evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC:
The six appellants faced trial along with 18 others for alleged offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were convicted by the Trial Court, which awarded life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and seven years of imprisonment for the offense under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleged that one Devi Charan (D-1) lost his life due to murderous assaults by the accused persons, and two others, Buddha (D-2) and Shanti Devi (D-3), also died in the incident.

2. Applicability of Section 149 IPC:
The High Court acquitted several accused persons, noting insufficient material to bring home the accusations against them. However, the High Court maintained the conviction of others, including Raj Pal, based on the presumption of motive due to his familial ties with the prime mover of the episode. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 149 IPC hinges on constructive liability and common object. The common object must be shared by all members of the assembly, and mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not render a person liable unless they share the common object. The Court highlighted that the common object can evolve during the incident and does not require prior concert or a meeting of minds.

3. Distinction of accused Raj Pal's case from other acquitted accused:
The High Court distinguished Raj Pal's case from other acquitted accused persons by presuming a motive due to his relationship with Harkesh, the prime mover. The Supreme Court found no positive material to distinguish Raj Pal's case from the acquitted accused and held that his conviction could not be maintained. Consequently, Raj Pal's appeal was allowed, and he was ordered to be released from custody unless required in another case.

4. Defense claims and alibis:
The defense's primary argument was denial and alibi. Accused Harish Chandra claimed that there was no resistance to the construction of the passage, and Har Prasad alleged that the prosecution side initiated the assault, resulting in injuries to the accused. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution's version, supported by injured witnesses' testimonies, and rejected the defense's alibi claims.

5. Evaluation of eyewitness testimony and evidence:
The prosecution presented 13 witnesses, including three eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5) and formal witnesses such as doctors and the investigating officer. The Trial Court found the testimonies of the injured witnesses credible and recorded the conviction. The Supreme Court reiterated that the common object of an unlawful assembly could be inferred from the assembly's nature, the arms carried, and the members' behavior. The Court found no substance in the defense's argument that specific roles were not ascribed to the accused, noting that in cases of unlawful assembly, it is often challenging to describe each assailant's part accurately.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Charan Singh, Dev Dutt, Virender, Kunwar Pal, and Harkesh, dismissing their appeals. The appeal of Raj Pal was allowed, and he was ordered to be released from custody. The Court emphasized the principles of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC, the importance of common object, and the credibility of eyewitness testimony in affirming the convictions.