1998 (8) TMI 646 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the offence.
2. Validity of the trial concerning the framing of charges.
3. Evaluation of evidence and witness testimonies.
4. Application of Section 149 IPC regarding common object and unlawful assembly.
5. Determination of common object and individual liability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Offence:
The judgment primarily addresses the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The trial court convicted eleven persons under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, among other charges. The High Court set aside the convictions under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC for A2 to A11, leading to the appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was heard together with the appeal filed by A1.

2. Validity of the Trial Concerning the Framing of Charges:
The defense argued that the charges were not framed in accordance with Section 211 of the CrPC, as the charge under Section 148 IPC did not specify the common object of the unlawful assembly, and a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed without the aid of Section 149 IPC. The court examined whether these errors caused a failure of justice. It concluded that the accused were not prejudiced in their defense because the material prosecution witnesses were cross-examined extensively, and the accused were informed of the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies:
The court found the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, and 3, who were members of the deceased's household, to be consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and other facts such as the prompt lodging of the FIR, recovery of blood-stained earth, and weapons from the scene. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5, who were neighbors, also supported the prosecution's case. The court noted that the injuries sustained by the deceased and the witnesses matched the accounts of the assault.

4. Application of Section 149 IPC Regarding Common Object and Unlawful Assembly:
The court referred to precedents to elucidate the principles of Section 149 IPC, which holds every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in furtherance of the common object. It emphasized that proving an overt act by each member is not necessary; the mere presence in the assembly with the common object suffices for liability. The court found that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly, which was to commit the murder of the deceased.

5. Determination of Common Object and Individual Liability:
The court examined the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased and the circumstances of the attack, concluding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder. It rejected the defense's argument that only A1 was individually liable for the murder, noting that the manner of the attack indicated that all members of the assembly knew that murder was likely to be committed. Thus, A2 to A5 and A9 were also held liable under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.

Conclusion:
The appeal by A1 was dismissed, and the appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh was allowed. The convictions and sentences of A2 to A5 and A9 under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were restored, and they were directed to surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence imposed by the trial court.