2006 (1) TMI 660 - SC - Indian Laws

Unlawful assembly - Offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code - Power of the Appellate Court - appeal against acquittal - HELD THAT - The trial court was of the view that absence of an independent eye-witness in the background of previous enmity, was a serious lacuna. But what the trial court failed to notice is that previous enmity was not denied and the prosecution case is that Kallu and other accused came in a group to Sadruddin's house specifically to beat him up. Therefore, the mere fact that there was enmity between Sadruddin and Kallu cannot be a ground to reject the clear evidence of the eye-witnesses - PWs 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 who were the injured, and PW-3. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held that the appellants and other accused were the assaulting party; that they had come together with weapons and had acted jointly and had run away after injuring Sadruddin and four female members of his family. We find that the High Court has not interfered in the matter in a routine manner merely because a different view is possible. The High Court has interfered rightly, in our view, because the trial court unreasonably disbelieved the evidence of six eye-witnesses on insufficient grounds. The High Court has also assigned reasons for interfering with acquittal. We find no error in the decision of the High Court. The accused before the trial court were 27 in number. PW- 4 specifically named 22 persons and further named the four out of them who landed him the blows. PW-3 names 12 persons who came as a group. Other eye-witnesses also clearly stated that the appellants with other accused who were present in court had come to attack Sadruddin. As noticed, the trial court chose to acquit all the 27 accused. In the appeal filed by the State, leave was granted by the High Court only in regard to five of the accused, as they were specifically named as the persons wielding weapons and causing injuries to Sadruddin and others and as the names of others were mentioned only as being members of the assembly without any specific act being attributed to them. The High Court gave benefit of doubt to one of the five (Anwar) though his presence as a member of the group was accepted. This resulted in conviction of only four. This does not mean that there is no finding that there was an unlawful assembly. When the evidence clearly shows that more than five persons armed with swords, spears etc. had come to the house of Sadruddin with the common object of causing injury, and injured him. The mere fact that several accused were acquitted and only four are convicted, does not enable the four who are found guilty to contend that Section 149 is inapplicable. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
2. High Court's partial allowance of the State's appeal.
3. Reliability of eye-witness testimonies.
4. Applicability of Section 149 IPC.
5. Interference by appellate court in a trial court's acquittal.
6. Previous enmity and its impact on the case.
7. Lack of independent witnesses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the Accused by the Trial Court:
The trial court acquitted all 27 accused based on three primary grounds: the eye-witnesses were from the Sadruddin group with enmity against the accused, no independent eye-witnesses were examined, and there were inconsistencies in the statements of the eye-witnesses.

2. High Court's Partial Allowance of the State's Appeal:
The High Court granted leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. concerning five accused who were specifically named in the evidence. The High Court convicted four of them (appellant Nos. 1 to 4) and sentenced them under various sections of the IPC, while giving the benefit of doubt to one accused (Anwar).

3. Reliability of Eye-Witness Testimonies:
The High Court found the testimonies of PWs 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10, corroborated by PW-3, credible. These witnesses provided consistent accounts of the appellants attacking Sadruddin and others. The trial court's decision to disbelieve these witnesses was deemed unreasonable by the High Court, which noted that minor inconsistencies should not lead to the rejection of their testimonies.

4. Applicability of Section 149 IPC:
The appellants contended that with only four persons found guilty, Section 149 IPC should not apply. However, the court clarified that Section 149 IPC applies if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, regardless of the number of convicted individuals. The presence of more than five persons armed with weapons at the scene, as evidenced, justified the application of Section 149 IPC.

5. Interference by Appellate Court in a Trial Court's Acquittal:
The appellate court's power to interfere with a trial court's acquittal was discussed. It was emphasized that the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. The High Court's interference was justified as the trial court had unreasonably disbelieved credible eye-witnesses on insufficient grounds.

6. Previous Enmity and Its Impact on the Case:
The trial court viewed the previous enmity between Sadruddin and the accused as a reason to doubt the prosecution's case. The High Court, however, noted that the enmity was not denied and that the appellants' actions were consistent with the prosecution's narrative of a planned attack.

7. Lack of Independent Witnesses:
The trial court considered the absence of independent witnesses a serious lacuna. The High Court countered that the presence of enmity and the specific circumstances of the attack justified reliance on the testimonies of the injured witnesses and other eye-witnesses.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions. The High Court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the High Court had rightly interfered with the trial court's acquittal based on credible evidence and sound reasoning.