1985 JTR(SC) 308
1986 AIR(SC) 316 ; 1985 CriLR 453 ; 1986 CriLR 72 ; 1986 CriLR(Cal) 68 ; 1985 2 Crimes(SC) 860 ; 1986 CrLJ 313 ; 1985 2 Scale 664 ; 1985 Supp SCC 471 ; 1985 SCC(Cri) 486 ; 1985 1 SCC(Cri) 486 ; 1985 1 UJ 1047
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Dalip Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1977
Decided on 18-9-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Frank Anthony, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocates with him, for Appellants; Mr. S. K. Bagga, Advocate, for Respondent.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.148, S.149
(A) The accused were charged under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, provisions that address offenses committed in pursuit of a common object by members of an unlawful assembly, including the use of firearms in violent attacks. The sequence of events shows the accused, forming part of an unlawful assembly, used lethal firearms to cause fatal injuries during an ambush, invoking the combined application of these sections to establish liability for both the offense and its aggravated consequences. Section 148 prescribes punishment for using criminal force against a public servant or others in furtherance of a common object, section 302 read with section 149 addresses murder and liability of every member of the unlawful assembly for acts done in furtherance of the common object, and section 307 deals with attempts to murder, all converging on the appellants premeditated and violent conduct.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of common intention under section 149, the clarity and reliability of eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the requirement of establishing unlawful assembly under section 148, and the treatment of new legal contentions at the appellate stage.
Facts of the case:
The accused, along with a deceased individual, formed an unlawful assembly armed with firearms, including rifles and 12 bore guns, and indiscriminately fired at a group traveling in a jeep on the Ludhiana-Ahmedgarh road, resulting in fatal injuries to the driver and injuries to another passenger, with the attack occurring suddenly while the vehicle was in motion.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses reliable and the prosecution evidence conclusive, convicting the accused under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149, and dismissing the appeal based on clear corroboration of medical and circumstantial evidence.
Issues:
Whether the evidence sufficiently proved the use of specific firearms, whether the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause fatal injury, and whether new contentions raised at the appellate stage warranted reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellants were held liable as members of an unlawful assembly under section 149 for murder under section 302, with the court rejecting late-emerging doubts about firearm identification due to clear oral and medical evidence, affirming the collective liability and the adequacy of the prosecutions case.
(A) The accused were charged under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, provisions that address offenses committed in pursuit of a common object by members of an unlawful assembly, including the use of firearms in violent attacks. The sequence of events shows the accused, forming part of an unlawful assembly, used lethal firearms to cause fatal injuries during an ambush, invoking the combined application of these sections to establish liability for both the offense and its aggravated consequences. Section 148 prescribes punishment for using criminal force against a public servant or others in furtherance of a common object, section 302 read with section 149 addresses murder and liability of every member of the unlawful assembly for acts done in furtherance of the common object, and section 307 deals with attempts to murder, all converging on the appellants premeditated and violent conduct.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of common intention under section 149, the clarity and reliability of eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the requirement of establishing unlawful assembly under section 148, and the treatment of new legal contentions at the appellate stage.
Facts of the case:
The accused, along with a deceased individual, formed an unlawful assembly armed with firearms, including rifles and 12 bore guns, and indiscriminately fired at a group traveling in a jeep on the Ludhiana-Ahmedgarh road, resulting in fatal injuries to the driver and injuries to another passenger, with the attack occurring suddenly while the vehicle was in motion.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses reliable and the prosecution evidence conclusive, convicting the accused under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149, and dismissing the appeal based on clear corroboration of medical and circumstantial evidence.
Issues:
Whether the evidence sufficiently proved the use of specific firearms, whether the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause fatal injury, and whether new contentions raised at the appellate stage warranted reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellants were held liable as members of an unlawful assembly under section 149 for murder under section 302, with the court rejecting late-emerging doubts about firearm identification due to clear oral and medical evidence, affirming the collective liability and the adequacy of the prosecutions case.
FRANK ANTHONY, Harjinder Singh, S.K.Bagga, SUSHIL KUMAR
JUDGMENT
RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— The four appellants were put on trial for offences punishable under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution alleged that they along with one Piara Singh, since murdered, had collected themselves fully armed near a culvert on the Ludhiana-Ahmedgarh road at about 1 p.m. on April 16, 1971. The complainants group was returning from Ludhiana in a jeep driven by P.W. 10 after purchasing a tyre and a tube for Bachan Singhs truck. Bachan Singh was sitting on the backside of the jeep and in front of him was sitting one Malkiat Singh, P.W. 9. Gurbachan Singh, P.W. 11 was sitting next to him. As the jeep approached the culvert on the way, Amrik Singh started firing from his gun. Then followed indiscriminate firing by the other appellants as a result of which Bachan Singh received fatal injuries. Gurbachan Singh also received a gunshot injury on his right arm and fortunately for the driver he was hit on his turban and was, therefore, not injured. The driver speedily drove away the jeep and medical treatment was provided but Bachan Singh succumbed to the injuries while P.W. 11 survived.
2. The defence was one of denial and false implication. At the trial P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 were examined as eye-witnesses and the trial Court relied upon their evidence as also the medical and circumstantial evidence available on record and convicted the appellants for the offences charged and sentenced them to one years rigorous imprisonment under S. 148 and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under section 302/149, IPC and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. In appeal there was a review of the evidence and the High Court was satisfied that the witnesses were reliable and the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
3. This appeal has been filed on special leave from this Court. At the hearing Mr. Frank Anthony mainly pressed the point that the evidence was not very clear as to whether a rifle in the hands of Amrik Singh or 12 bore guns in the hands of the other accused persons had really been used for causing the injuries. According to him there is confusion as to which of the firearms had been used for causing the injuries on the deceased as also P.W. 11. This aspect had not been pressed at the earlier stages and it is a new contention advanced. Besides, the accused persons were on the wayside culvert and the jeep was on its move on the road. The firing started somewhat suddenly and in these circumstances there is possibility of mistake as to whether it was a rifle or the other guns that had. been put to service. This contention, however, does not impress us inasmuch as the oral evidence is very clear and is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. We agree with the High Court that the appellants along with Piara Singh had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of fatally injuring the deceased and members of his party. There is clear motive and once we reject the sole contention advanced by Mr. Frank Anthony, the appeal has no merit and has to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1986 SC 316
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.