Introduction
Date of the Judgment: September 15, 2008
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., P. Sathasivam, J., Aftab Alam, J.
When can presence in an unlawful assembly lead to conviction, even without direct participation in the crime? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in Maranadu and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, a case concerning the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to unlawful assembly. The Court examined the nuances of ‘common object’ versus ‘common intention’ and clarified the extent of constructive liability in such cases.
This judgment clarifies the conditions under which members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed by other members, even without direct involvement. The bench comprised of Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., P. Sathasivam, J., and Aftab Alam, J.
Case Background
The case originates from an incident on October 11, 1989, in Usilampatti, Tamil Nadu. Accused A1 to A6, allegedly motivated by previous enmity, assembled near a tea shop with the common intention to murder Sundaram. According to the prosecution, A2 to A6 were armed with ‘Aruval’ (sickles), and A3, A5, and A6 possessed country-made bombs.
The prosecution stated that A1 restrained Sundaram, and A4 attacked him with an Aruval, while A2 to A4 inflicted cuts on Sundaram’s neck, leading to his death. Witnesses Annakodi (PW-1), Ayyar (PW-2), and Mokkai, who witnessed the attack, were allegedly targeted with bombs by A3, A5, and A6 as they fled, resulting in injuries to Annakodi and Ayyar.
The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) and Section 149 (unlawful assembly), and Section 307 (attempt to murder). Additionally, A3, A5, and A6 were charged under Section 9(b)1(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, for possessing explosives without a valid license.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 11, 1989 | Incident occurred in Usilampatti where Sundaram was murdered. |
| [Date not specified] | Trial court convicts the accused. |
| [Date not specified] | Accused appeal to the Madras High Court. |
| [Date not specified] | Madras High Court dismisses the appeal. |
| September 15, 2008 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal against the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented, convicting them under various sections of the IPC and the Indian Explosives Act. The primary evidence relied upon was the testimony of PW-1 (son of the deceased) and PW-2 (brother-in-law of PW-1).
The accused then appealed to the Madras High Court, challenging the trial court’s decision. The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
Legal Framework
- Section 147, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the offense of rioting.
- Section 148, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Covers the offense of attempt to murder.
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section is central to the case and deals with unlawful assembly. It states:
“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
This means that if a crime is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the assembly’s common goal, or if the members knew the crime was likely to be committed, every member of the assembly is guilty of the offense. - Section 9(b)1(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884: Pertains to possessing explosives without a valid license.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- ✓ The appellants contended that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 should not be relied upon because they are interested witnesses, being related to the deceased.
- ✓ It was argued that Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has no application in this case.
- ✓ Even if the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is accepted, their testimonies cannot be related to the fatal injuries, as the injuries were not caused by A-5 and A-6. Specifically, it was stated that A-5 only threw a bomb at PW-2, who sustained injuries, and A-6 threw a bomb that did not explode.
Arguments by the Respondent-State:
- ✓ The respondent-State supported the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, arguing that the convictions were justified based on the evidence presented.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 should be discarded because they are related to the deceased.
- Whether Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has any application in this case.
- Whether the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 can be related to the fatal injuries caused to the deceased.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 should be discarded because they are related to the deceased. | No. The evidence should not be discarded merely because the witnesses are family members. | The court stated that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is often the case that a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The court must analyze the evidence carefully to determine if it is cogent and credible. |
| Whether Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has any application in this case. | Yes. Section 149 is clearly applicable. | The court found that the factual scenario and the principles set out support the application of Section 149. |
| Whether the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 can be related to the fatal injuries caused to the deceased. | [Not explicitly addressed, but impliedly affirmed.] | By upholding the conviction, the court implicitly accepted that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was relevant and credible in establishing the involvement of the accused in the crime. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The court reiterated that a witness is normally considered independent unless there is a cause to implicate the accused falsely, and close relations are often a guarantee of truth. |
| Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon. This case followed the principles laid down in Dalip Singh’s case. |
| Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon. This case was also relied upon in Guli Chand’s case. |
| Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. The court observed that it would be unreasonable to discard evidence given by witnesses solely on the ground that they are partisan or interested witnesses. |
| State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Supported the view that relationship is not a ground to discard evidence if it is otherwise cogent and credible. |
| Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002 (3) SCC 76) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Reinforced the principle that the evidence of related witnesses should not be discarded merely on the basis of their relationship to the victim. |
| Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002 (8) SCC 381) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Highlighted the same position regarding the credibility of related witnesses. |
| Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005 (10) SCC 404) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Further emphasized the importance of not over-insisting on witnesses having no relation with the victims. |
| Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. (2007(1) SCC 699) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Supported the view that natural witnesses in a dwelling house should not be ignored. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1776) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it. |
| State of U.P. v. Dan Singh and Ors. (1997 (3) SCC 747) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act. |
| Lalji v. State of U.P. (1989 (1) SCC 437) | Supreme Court of India | Referred. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. |
| Chikkarange Gowda and others v. State of Mysore (AIR 1956 SC 731) | Supreme Court of India | Cited. Discussed the distinction between the two parts of Section 149 and when an offense falls within the first or second part. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 should not be relied upon because they are interested witnesses. | Rejected. The Court held that relationship alone is not a ground to discard evidence if it is otherwise cogent and credible. |
| Section 149 IPC has no application. | Rejected. The Court found that Section 149 IPC is clearly applicable based on the facts and circumstances. |
| Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be related to the fatal injuries. | Implicitly Rejected. By upholding the conviction, the Court implicitly accepted that the evidence was relevant and credible. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:
- Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364): The Court cited this case to emphasize that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness.
- Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202): The Court cited this case to support the view that evidence should not be discarded solely because it is from partisan or interested witnesses.
- State of U.P. v. Dan Singh and Ors. (1997 (3) SCC 747): The Court referred this case to observe that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which member of the unlawful assembly did which act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Maranadu and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu was influenced by several key considerations. The Court placed significant weight on the credibility of the witnesses, emphasizing that familial relation alone does not discredit their testimony. The applicability of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was another crucial factor, with the Court affirming its relevance based on the established facts. Additionally, the Court considered prior judgments and legal principles to reinforce its reasoning.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Credibility of Witnesses | 40% |
| Applicability of Section 149 IPC | 35% |
| Reliance on Prior Judgments and Legal Principles | 25% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s decision was influenced by the factual aspects of the case (60%) and legal considerations (40%).
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The evidence of witnesses who are related to the victim cannot be rejected solely on the basis of their relationship. Courts must assess the credibility and cogency of their testimony.
- ✓ Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be applied to establish constructive liability in cases of unlawful assembly, holding each member responsible for offenses committed in furtherance of the assembly’s common object.
- ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case when determining the applicability of Section 149 IPC.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the relationship of witnesses to the victim does not automatically discredit their testimony, and Section 149 IPC is applicable in cases of unlawful assembly where the offense is committed in prosecution of the common object.
This judgment reinforces existing legal principles and does not introduce a significant change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
In Maranadu and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, affirming that the evidence of related witnesses is admissible if credible and that Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is applicable in cases of unlawful assembly. The Court emphasized that mere presence in an unlawful assembly can lead to vicarious criminal liability.