Supreme Court Upholds Attempt to Murder Conviction, Modifies Unlawful Assembly Charge: Rohtas & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 944

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a conviction for attempt to murder stand when the charge of unlawful assembly fails? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused were initially charged with attempt to murder as part of an unlawful assembly. The court examined whether the conviction could be upheld even after some of the accused were acquitted, thereby reducing the number of persons in the assembly below the statutory requirement. The judgment also discusses the reliability of testimony from related witnesses in violent crimes. The bench was composed of Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Ranbir Singh (PW-1) on January 26, 1998. He stated that two days prior, Rohtas, Sanjay, Bijender, and Om Prakash had threatened him with death if he returned to irrigate his fields. Despite this threat, Ranbir went to his field on January 25, 1998, where he was attacked by the same four individuals, who inflicted severe injuries with axes. Subsequently, three more individuals, Hawa Singh, Virender @ Beero, and Rajinder, joined the assault. Ranbir’s brother, Balwan (PW-3), who was nearby, rushed to the scene and raised an alarm, causing the assailants to flee. Ranbir was taken to a hospital in Sonipat and later referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, due to the severity of his injuries.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, charged the seven accused with rioting with deadly weapons under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and attempt to murder with common object as part of an unlawful assembly under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the trial, Om Prakash died, and the proceedings against him were abated. The trial court convicted the remaining six accused. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted Rajinder, Hawa Singh, and Virender @ Beero, giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of Rohtas, Sanjay, and Bijender, while reducing their sentence from seven to five years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the victim.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section deals with rioting while being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—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 section defines the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object of that assembly.
• Section 307: “Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” This section deals with the attempt to commit murder.

The legal framework also includes the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Sections 211 to 224 which deal with framing of charges and Section 386 which bestows appellate courts with powers to amend charges.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Unlawful Assembly: The appellants argued that since the High Court acquitted three of the seven accused, the remaining three could not be convicted under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as it requires a minimum of five persons to constitute an unlawful assembly. They cited Amar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1987) 1 SCC 679] and Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar [(2002) 6 SCC 506] to support this claim.

• Conversion of Charge: The appellants contended that the case should not be converted to one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 simpliciter at an advanced stage, relying on Subran v. State of Kerala [(1993) 3 SCC 32].

• Interested Witness: They argued that the prosecution’s case was doubtful because Balwan (PW-3), the sole eyewitness, was a related witness, and no independent witnesses were examined.

• Leniency: The appellants requested leniency, stating that they had been on bail for almost a decade and had already served a portion of their sentence.

State’s Arguments:

• Attempt to Murder: The State argued that the case was a clear instance of attempt to murder, involving seven persons with a common intention and prior meeting of minds.

• Severity of Injuries: The State emphasized that the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim warranted no leniency.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether a charge framed with the assistance of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be converted to one under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or a simplicitor individual crime.
2. Whether the lack of independent witnesses to a violent crime undermines the prosecution case, and whether closely related witnesses can be relied upon.
3. Whether leniency ought to be shown to the appellants given the extended period of liberty they have enjoyed since being released on bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Amar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1987) 1 SCC 679]: The Court discussed the requirements for conviction under Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court noted that the acquittal was based not merely on failure by the prosecution to fulfil the requirements of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but because even independently no substantive offense was found to have been committed.
• Dhupa Chamar v. State of Bihar [(2002) 6 SCC 506]: This case was cited by the appellants to argue that the conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not stand after the acquittal of some accused.
• Subran v. State of Kerala [(1993) 3 SCC 32]: The appellants relied on this case to argue against converting the charge to one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 simpliciter. However, the court noted that the extracts of this case as relied upon by the appellants’ counsel have been subsequently recalled and substituted by the bench in review jurisdiction [(1993) 3 SCC 722]. The amended version makes clear that acquittal in Subran was not because of improper framing of charges but on facts.
• Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1954 SC 204]: The Court discussed the overlap between Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the permissibility of substituting one for the other.
• Willie (William) Slaney v. State of MP [AIR 1956 SC 116]: This case further concretized the position of law regarding the alteration of charges.
• Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 266]: The Court discussed the permissibility of convicting an accused individually under a simplicitor provision after the group conviction with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 fails.
• Atmaram Zingaraji v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 7 SCC 41]: This case explored the permissibility of convicting an accused individually under a simplicitor provision after the group conviction with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 fails.
• Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2002) 7 SCC 117]: The Court summarized the legal position regarding conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 simpliciter without the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Krishna v. State of Maharashtra [1964] 1 SCR 678: This case was cited to illustrate that when several accused are tried for an offence with common intention and some are acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra [(1969) 3 SCC 166]: This case was cited to show that improper, or non-framing of charge by itself is not a ground for acquittal under Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines an unlawful assembly.
• Sections 211 to 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: These sections deal with framing of charges in criminal trials.
• Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section bestows appellate courts with powers to make amendments to the charges.
• Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the effect of errors in charges.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

• The Court distinguished Amar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1987) 1 SCC 679], noting that the acquittal in that case was not merely due to the failure of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but because no substantive offense was found to have been committed independently.
• The Court noted that the extracts of Subran v. State of Kerala [(1993) 3 SCC 32], as relied upon by the appellants’ counsel have been subsequently recalled and substituted by the bench in review jurisdiction. The amended version makes clear that acquittal in Subran was not because of improper framing of charges but on facts.
• The Court cited Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1954 SC 204] to explain the overlap and permissibility of substitution between Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Court also cited Willie (William) Slaney v. State of MP [AIR 1956 SC 116], Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 266], Atmaram Zingaraji v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 7 SCC 41] and Nallabothu Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2002) 7 SCC 117] to reinforce the position that an accused can be convicted for individual offenses even if the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 fails.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Severity of Injuries: The brutal nature of the attack and the grievous injuries inflicted on the victim, including the amputation of his leg, weighed heavily on the Court’s mind. The Court noted that the injuries were more than sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the testimony of the victim (PW-1) and his brother (PW-3) to be credible and consistent. The Court noted that there was no reason for them to falsely implicate the appellants.
• Premeditation: The Court observed that the attack was premeditated, as the appellants had threatened the complainant a day before the incident. This indicated a prior meeting of minds and a common intention to harm the complainant.
• Individual Acts: The Court emphasized that each of the appellants had actively participated in the crime, using deadly weapons to inflict injuries on the complainant.
• Legal Principles: The Court reiterated the legal principle that a charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be converted to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or a simplicitor offense if the evidence supports it.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the overwhelming evidence of the appellants’ involvement in the crime. The Court emphasized that the injuries inflicted were sufficient to cause death and demonstrated a clear intention to murder.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that the appellants’ actions met the criteria for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court stated, “The medical experts have in their depositions clearly explicated that the weapons used and the injuries inflicted were more than sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.” The Court further noted, “The appellants made death threats to the complainant on 24.01.1998 and then they used sharp edged weapons the very next day and further declared that they would not rest till they killed the complainant.” The Court also observed, “The recovery of the axe (kulhari) from Rohtas, which is on the record as Exhibit-P7, further punches holes in the mask of denial worn by the appellants.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for attempt to murder can be upheld even if the charge of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 fails, provided that the evidence demonstrates individual acts of attempt to murder.
• Courts have the flexibility to alter charges if it does not cause prejudice to the accused.
• The testimony of related witnesses can be relied upon if they are found to be credible and consistent. The absence of independent witnesses does not automatically weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The severity of the crime and the injuries inflicted on the victim are important factors in determining the sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail bonds of the appellants and directed the State of Haryana to take them into custody to serve the remainder of their five-year sentence.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be converted to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or a simplicitor offense if the evidence supports it, and that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically weaken the prosecution’s case. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the conviction for attempt to murder can be upheld even if the charge of unlawful assembly fails, provided the evidence demonstrates individual acts of attempt to murder. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court clarified the application of these principles in the context of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Rohtas, Sanjay, and Bijender, upholding their conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to murder. The Court set aside their conviction under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the evidence clearly established the appellants’ individual roles in the brutal attack and that their actions met the criteria for attempt to murder. The appellants were directed to serve the remainder of their five-year sentence.