1993 (4) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether mere rejection of the Special Leave Petition of co-accused persons cannot seal the fate of the appeals of the appellants which have been entertained after leave having been granted by this Court? Held that - On materials on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish that appellants had the common object or shared the common intention to cause the murder of the victim. From the evidence of the prosecution itself it appears that the flour mill of the deceased and the residential unit of the accused persons being adjacent to each other, suddenly a fight took place in which the appellant Satbir gave a blow by the back side (wooden part) of the Pharsa, which caused one of the two injuries on the head of the deceased. It cannot be held that appellant Satbir had an intention to cause the death of the victim. In the circumstances of the case, it can be said that he had only knowledge that such blow may cause an injury resulting in the death of the victim. Accordingly he should have been convicted under Section 304, Part-11, of the Penal Code. So far appellant Gulbir is concerned, according to the prosecution case, he was carrying a stick and he is alleged to have given a stick blow to the deceased on a non-vital part of the body. In this background, according to us, he can be held to have committed the offence only under Section 325 of the Penal Code. As already pointed out according to the prosecution case itself, the appellant Hari Singh, who was aged about 60 years at the time of the occurrence is said to have given a stick (lathi) blow to the informant PW 16. He is not alleged to have given any blow to the deceased. Once it is held that different accused persons neither had any common object nor any common intention which they shared together to commit an offence under Section 302 or alike, the appellant Hari Singh has to be held guilty for an offence only under Section 323 of the Penal Code. In the result the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code is set aside. The conviction under Section 148 and 323 read with 149 is also set aside. The appellant Satbir is convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellant Gulbir is convicted for an offence under Section 325 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. So far the appellant Hari Singh is concerned, he is convicted for an offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149
2. Conviction under Section 148
3. Conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149
4. Whether the prosecution suppressed the real manner of occurrence
5. The impact of the rejection of Special Leave Petition for co-accused on the present appeals

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149:

The appellants were initially convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 for the murder of Mange Ram. The prosecution's case was that the accused had a common intention to cause the death of the victim. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants had a common object or shared the common intention to commit murder. The injuries inflicted by the appellants were caused by the blunt side of the Pharsa, indicating no intention to cause death. The court concluded that the appellants had knowledge that their actions could cause death but did not intend to kill. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149.

2. Conviction under Section 148:

The appellants were also convicted under Section 148 for rioting with a deadly weapon. Given the lack of evidence proving a common object or intention to commit murder, the court found that the conviction under Section 148 should also be set aside. The court noted that the altercation appeared to be a sudden fight rather than a premeditated act of rioting.

3. Conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149:

The appellants were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 for causing hurt. The court found that the evidence did not support a common intention or object among the accused to cause hurt as defined under Section 149. Therefore, the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149 was set aside.

4. Suppression of the Real Manner of Occurrence:

The appellants argued that the prosecution suppressed the real manner of occurrence and presented a version that could not be accepted. The court observed inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, such as the failure to mention the blunt side of the Pharsa in the First Information Report and the improbability of the elderly Hari Singh joining his sons in the assault. The court concluded that the prosecution's version was not the real version of the occurrence, leading to the setting aside of the convictions under Sections 302, 148, and 323 read with 149.

5. Impact of Rejection of Special Leave Petition for Co-accused:

The State argued that the rejection of the Special Leave Petition for co-accused Suresh and Vijender should preclude the court from entertaining the present appeals. The court clarified that the rejection of a Special Leave Petition does not amount to a judgment affirming the findings of the lower courts. The court emphasized that each case must be decided on its merits, and the rejection of a Special Leave Petition for co-accused does not bind the court in deciding the appeals of the present appellants. The court cited precedents to support its position that the doctrine of precedent does not apply to the rejection of Special Leave Petitions.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 148, and Section 323 read with 149. The court convicted appellant Satbir under Section 304 Part II and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Gulbir was convicted under Section 325 and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Hari Singh was convicted under Section 323 and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The appeals were allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

← Previous Next →