Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: Debashis Daw & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2010)

Date of the Judgment: 5th August 2010

Citation: Not Available

Judges: B. Sudershan Reddy, J; Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.

Can a group of individuals be convicted for murder if they were part of an unlawful assembly, even if the specific role of each individual in the crime is not clearly defined? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a fatal assault. The court examined whether the accused individuals shared a common objective and were part of an unlawful assembly that resulted in the death of a person. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.

Case Background

On March 31, 1986, a group of individuals, including the appellants, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly. Armed with weapons such as bhojali, swords, tangi, and lathi, they were present at Rajagram Kharida T.O.P. According to the prosecution, they voluntarily caused hurt to Kalyan Seth (PW 2) and assaulted Subrata Ghosh, who later died from his injuries. The incident occurred at approximately 11:35 PM. The police, upon receiving a phone call about a disturbance, arrived at the scene and recorded the statement of Suphala Sau (PW 1). Kalyan Seth was taken to the hospital around 11:00 PM and treated by Dr. Subrata Jana (PW 7). The First Information Report (FIR) was dispatched from the police station on April 1, 1986, at about 10:00 AM.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore, convicted the accused under Sections 148, 324/149, and 304 Part I/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on September 26, 1989. They were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appellants then appealed to the High Court at Calcutta, which dismissed their appeal on April 21, 2005. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India, filing three criminal appeals against the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 148, IPC: “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 armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: “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 establishes the principle of vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 304 Part I, IPC: “Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” This section deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 324, IPC: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, 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 voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

These sections are part of the Indian Penal Code, which is the primary criminal code of India. They define offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, culpable homicide, and voluntarily causing hurt. The legal framework establishes the basis for determining the guilt and punishment of individuals involved in the alleged crimes.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The First Information Report (FIR) is unreliable because the maker of the FIR, Suphala Sau (PW 1), did not support her version in court.
• The injured witness, Kalyan Seth (PW 2), gave a different version, implicating only four persons initially.
• The prosecution deliberately shifted the place of occurrence to introduce the parents of the deceased as witnesses.
• The police received a telephonic message about a disturbance at Teghori, but went to Rajagram instead, without explanation.
• There were contradictions in the evidence of PWs 2, 5, and 8, who were the eyewitnesses.
• Kalyan Seth (PW 2) named only four assailants in his statement to the doctor (PW 7) at the hospital, and none of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1679 of 2005 were named by him.

Arguments of the Respondent (State):

• The trial court and appellate court, upon appreciating the evidence, found the appellants guilty.
• There is no reason to disbelieve PWs 2, 5, and 8, who are material witnesses.

Sub-Submissions by the Appellants:

• The FIR was not the first in point of time nor truthful in its contents.
• The injured witness, Kalyan Seth (PW 2) gave a different version implicating only Rabin Dangua, Dulal Khara, Mantu Santra and Chunki Santra when he made a statement to the doctor (PW 7).
• The prosecution deliberately shifted the place of occurrence from Rajagram Kharida to that at Gokulpur road to introduce the parents of the deceased as witnesses.
• The police received a telephonic message about a disturbance at Teghori near Madbhati liquor shop, but went to Rajagram instead, without explanation.
• There is no explanation as to why the police went to the house of Suphala Sau (PW 1), who is a resident of Rajagram, instead of Teghori.
• There were contradictions in the evidence of PWs 2, 5, and 8.
• The torch lights seized were without batteries and bulbs.
• The parents of the deceased did not accompany their injured son to the hospital.
• The scene of occurrence was deliberately shifted to the vicinity of the residence of PW 5.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue that the court addressed was whether the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the offense.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court distinguished Badam Singh vs. State of M.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 792], stating that the trial court and the appellate court had considered the evidence in its entirety and found no reason to discard the evidence of the witnesses.
• The court explained the principle laid down in Akbar Sheikh vs. State of W.B. [(2009) 7 SCC 415], that mere presence at the scene of the offense is not sufficient for conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It must be established that each person was part of the unlawful assembly and committed the offense in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.
• The court explained the principle laid down in Sherey & Ors. vs. State of U.P. [(1991) Supp. (2) SCC 437], that in cases where general allegations are made against a large number of persons, the courts should carefully scrutinize the evidence and hesitate to convict a large number of persons if the evidence is vague.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the credibility of the eyewitness accounts, particularly those of Kalyan Seth (PW 2), the injured victim, and the parents of the deceased (PWs 5 and 8). The court found that the witnesses’ testimonies were consistent and credible, despite minor discrepancies. The court also noted that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, and shared a common objective to commit the offense.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual evidence presented by the witnesses and the circumstances of the case. The legal aspects were considered to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, but rejected them, finding the eyewitness testimonies and the overall circumstances of the case to be credible. The court concluded that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the offense.

The court stated:

• “The trial Court also came to the conclusion that Kalyan Seth (PW 2) also received injuries from the appellants who formed themselves into unlawful assembly.”
• “We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of PWs 5 and 8. They clearly speak about the assault on the deceased by the appellants forming themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons.”
• “The evidence available on record clearly suggests that each of the appellants was part of the unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, together indulged in indiscriminate beating and freely used weapons in their hands causing severe injuries on the body of the deceased.”

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, with Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Membership in an unlawful assembly can lead to conviction for offenses committed by any member of that assembly, under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Eyewitness testimony is crucial in criminal cases, and minor discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the overall credibility of the witness.
• The courts will consider the totality of the evidence, including the circumstances of the case, to determine guilt.

This judgment reinforces the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It also highlights the importance of credible eyewitness testimony in criminal cases and the need for courts to consider the totality of the evidence while determining guilt.

Directions

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. The appellants were ordered to be released from jail forthwith, provided they were not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the offense, thereby upholding their conviction under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There was no change in the previous positions of law, but the case reinforces the application of the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for being part of an unlawful assembly that resulted in the death of Subrata Ghosh. The court relied on the consistent and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellants were ordered to be released, if not required in any other case. This judgment reinforces the legal principles related to unlawful assembly and vicarious liability in criminal law.