1997 (2) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) and the sequence of events.
3. Existence and identification of an unlawful assembly.
4. Credibility of witness testimonies.
5. Application of Section 149 IPC (common object of unlawful assembly).
6. Appellate jurisdiction and procedural aspects under Section 392 of the CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal of the Accused:
The Supreme Court reviewed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's judgment, which upheld the acquittal of 32 accused-respondents under Sections 147, 302/149, 436/149, 307/149 of the IPC and Sections 4(iv), (x), 5, and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The Sessions Judge initially acquitted all accused, and the High Court upheld this acquittal except for two respondents, who were convicted under Section 325/34 IPC.

2. Validity of the FIR and Sequence of Events:
The incident occurred on 9th May 1980, involving a Scheduled Caste marriage party attacked by villagers, leading to 14 deaths and 7 injuries. The complainant lodged an FIR at 10 p.m., while an accused lodged a counter-report at 9:30 p.m. The Court noted discrepancies in the timing and content of the FIR but did not find these sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case entirely.

3. Existence and Identification of Unlawful Assembly:
The Court examined whether an unlawful assembly existed and its common object. The evidence showed that a large number of villagers armed with lathis and sticks attacked the marriage party, leading to deaths and injuries. The Court concluded that an unlawful assembly did exist with the common object of attacking the Scheduled Caste members.

4. Credibility of Witness Testimonies:
The prosecution presented eight eyewitnesses, seven of whom were injured. The Court scrutinized their testimonies, noting that minor inconsistencies did not undermine the overall credibility. The High Court had rejected some testimonies based on perceived inconsistencies, but the Supreme Court found these reasons insufficient.

5. Application of Section 149 IPC:
The Court emphasized that under Section 149 IPC, mere presence in an unlawful assembly could fasten vicarious criminal liability. It was not necessary to prove individual overt acts. The Court applied this principle, finding that the common object of the assembly was to attack and kill the marriage party members.

6. Appellate Jurisdiction and Procedural Aspects:
The appeal involved procedural examination under Section 392 of the CrPC, where the opinions of two judges differed, and a third judge's opinion was sought. The Supreme Court clarified that the final judgment followed the third judge's opinion, making the earlier orders non-est.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of several respondents, finding them guilty under Sections 147, 302/149, 436/149, 323/149, and 307/149 IPC, and sentenced them accordingly. The appeal against other respondents was dismissed, and they were discharged from bail bonds. The Court underscored the importance of considering the collective behavior and common object of an unlawful assembly in determining criminal liability.