1998 JTR(SC) 296
1998 2 AICLR 700 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 2883 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 1775 ; 1998 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 633 ; 1998 37 AllCriC 1 ; 1998 1 ALT(Cri)(SC) 333 ; 1998 2 CCR(SC) 41 ; 1998 CriLR 531 ; 1998 1 Crimes(SC) 280 ; 1998 CrLJ 2558 ; 1998 1 EastCrC(SC) 799 ; 1998 2 JT 434 ; 1998 2 Scale 342 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1350 ; 1998 1 UJ 738 ; 1998 2 Supreme 525
1998(2) Supreme 525
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & V.N. Khare, JJ.
Rewa Ram -Appellant
versus
Teja & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 1989
Decided on 3-3-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.V. Deshpande, Pramit Saxena, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.N. Shukla and U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Madhur Dadlani, Uma Nath Singh and Ranjit Kumar, Advocates.
Important Point
In absence of any charge against the accused that the death of deceased was caused in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which they were members, the accused cannot be convicted u/s 302, IPC but would be guilty u/s 326, IPC as it was stated in the charge that their common object was to assault deceased and commit rioting with deadly weapons.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.148, S.300, S.302, S.326
(A) The Indian Penal Code sections 148, 300, 302, and 326 govern unlawful assembly, culpable homicide, murder, and grievous hurt, respectively. In this appeal, the accused were initially convicted under Sections 148 and 302 for causing death during a riot, but the High Court reappraised the evidence and shifted the conviction to Section 326, emphasizing that the fatal injury could not be attributed to any specific accused and that the common object was assault, not murder. Sections 300 and 302 require proof of intention to cause death or knowledge of likely death, which was not satisfied, whereas Section 326 applies to grievous hurt caused during unlawful assembly.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement to prove specific intent for murder under Section 302, the application of Section 326 when the fatal injury is indeterminate, and the limitation of liability to the common object of the unlawful assembly. (
Facts of the case:
Five persons were tried for causing death of Ram Bharose on 16.2.1982. The trial court convicted all five under Sections 148 and 302 based on eyewitness testimony. Two accused died during appeal, and the High Court relied on the witnesses' evidence, holding that the injuries were inflicted with various weapons. Since it could not be determined which accused caused the fatal injury, the High Court convicted them only under Section 326. The appeal before this court challenged the conviction under Section 302.)
Findings of Court:
The High Court accepted the evidence of two eyewitnesses but noted that they referred to only 8 to 10 injuries, whereas the deceased had 51 injuries. It was not possible to identify who caused the fatal injury, so the conviction under Section 326 was appropriate. The High Court also observed that there was no charge of murder by furtherance of a common object, and thus Section 302 could not be applied. The present appeal found no substance and was dismissed.
Issues:
Whether the accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC when the fatal injury is indeterminate and cannot be attributed to a specific accused. Whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause murder or merely to assault with deadly weapons.
Ratio Decidendi:
When multiple accused are involved in an assault resulting in death, and it is impossible to determine which accused caused the fatal injury, the accused can be convicted under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt causing death, not under Section 302 IPC for murder, unless the prosecution proves specific intent or knowledge in furtherance of the common object. The conviction must align with the proven common object and the evidence of participation.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld.
(A) The Indian Penal Code sections 148, 300, 302, and 326 govern unlawful assembly, culpable homicide, murder, and grievous hurt, respectively. In this appeal, the accused were initially convicted under Sections 148 and 302 for causing death during a riot, but the High Court reappraised the evidence and shifted the conviction to Section 326, emphasizing that the fatal injury could not be attributed to any specific accused and that the common object was assault, not murder. Sections 300 and 302 require proof of intention to cause death or knowledge of likely death, which was not satisfied, whereas Section 326 applies to grievous hurt caused during unlawful assembly.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement to prove specific intent for murder under Section 302, the application of Section 326 when the fatal injury is indeterminate, and the limitation of liability to the common object of the unlawful assembly. (
Facts of the case:
Five persons were tried for causing death of Ram Bharose on 16.2.1982. The trial court convicted all five under Sections 148 and 302 based on eyewitness testimony. Two accused died during appeal, and the High Court relied on the witnesses' evidence, holding that the injuries were inflicted with various weapons. Since it could not be determined which accused caused the fatal injury, the High Court convicted them only under Section 326. The appeal before this court challenged the conviction under Section 302.)
Findings of Court:
The High Court accepted the evidence of two eyewitnesses but noted that they referred to only 8 to 10 injuries, whereas the deceased had 51 injuries. It was not possible to identify who caused the fatal injury, so the conviction under Section 326 was appropriate. The High Court also observed that there was no charge of murder by furtherance of a common object, and thus Section 302 could not be applied. The present appeal found no substance and was dismissed.
Issues:
Whether the accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC when the fatal injury is indeterminate and cannot be attributed to a specific accused. Whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause murder or merely to assault with deadly weapons.
Ratio Decidendi:
When multiple accused are involved in an assault resulting in death, and it is impossible to determine which accused caused the fatal injury, the accused can be convicted under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt causing death, not under Section 302 IPC for murder, unless the prosecution proves specific intent or knowledge in furtherance of the common object. The conviction must align with the proven common object and the evidence of participation.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Even though in the Cause Title of the Appeal five persons are shown as respondents, it has to be treated as an appeal against three respondents only, as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
2. The three respondents were tried along with Jagdish Singh and Jay Narayan for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC for causing death of Ram Bharose on 16.2.1982 at 11.00 a.m. The trial Court believed the evidence of P.W. 4. Rewa Ram who was with Ram Bharose at the time of the incident and also of P.W. 3 Ram Avtar who had seen the incident while standing near the house of Kishan Lal and convicted all the five accused under Section 148 and 302 IPC. All the five convicted accused filed an appeal before the High Court. Accused Jay Narayan and Jagdish died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, their appeal abated. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence of P.W. 3 Ram Avtar and P.W. 4 Rewa Ram held that they were present at the time of the occurrence and could be accepted as truthful witnesses. The High Court, therefore, relied upon their evidence and held that the accused had assaulted Ram Bharose with different types of weapons which they were carrying. The High Court, however, did not confirm their conviction under Section 302 IPC for the reason that there was no charge against them that the death of Ram Bharose was caused, in furtherence of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which they were the members. The High Court, therefore, held that they could be held guilty only under Section 326 IPC particularly when it was stated in the charge that their common object was to assault Ram Bharose and commit rioting with deadly weapons.
3. We have also gone through the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4. From their evidence it is not possible to say which fatal injury was caused by which accused. The two witnesses have specifically referred to only about 8 to 10 injuries whereas on the person of Ram Bharose as many as 51 injuries were found. As it was not possible to hold who had caused the fatal injury to the deceased, the High Court rightly convicted them under Section 326 IPC.
4. As we do not find any substance in this appeal, it is dismissed. The bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.
(H.K.) Appeal dismissed.
**********