Date of the Judgment: 23 January 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 23
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., R. Banumathi, J.
Can a group of individuals be held liable for murder if they share a common intention, even if not all directly inflicted the fatal blows? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a criminal appeal, examining the convictions of several individuals involved in a deadly assault. The case revolves around a violent incident where multiple people were killed and injured, and the court had to determine the extent of each accused’s liability. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Case Background
The case originated from an incident on August 3, 2008, around 1:30 PM. Birichram (PW-19) was going to invite Bhojram for a ceremony when he was threatened by Dashrath @ Jolo and others. The situation escalated, leading to a violent confrontation. Chhedilal, who tried to intervene, was fatally attacked with a battleaxe. Subsequently, Bhuru @ Parmanand and Bablu were also killed, and others sustained injuries. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the recovery of weapons.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 3, 2008 | Incident occurred at 1:30 PM where PW-19 was threatened, and Chhedilal, Bhuru @ Parmanand, and Bablu were killed. |
| Accused were arrested, and weapons were recovered based on their disclosure statements. | |
| Seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). | |
| Chargesheet was filed against the appellants and other accused after investigation. | |
| Trial court found the appellants guilty. | |
| Appeals were filed before the High Court. | |
| May 13, 2014 | High Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the trial court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with other offenses, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeals filed by Dashrath @ Jolo, Anand, and Laxmi, upholding the trial court’s decision. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, two accused, Phodol @ Duryodhan and Mohal Lal, died. The High Court acquitted two female accused, Dujmati and Triveni Bai.
Legal Framework
The key legal provisions in this case are Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses the concept of unlawful assembly.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“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.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that the incident occurred in front of their houses, and that they acted in self-defense. They contended that the complainant party were the aggressors, trying to show off the celebration of the birth of a child. The appellants also argued that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by them.
The prosecution argued that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony and evidence of weapon recovery to support their case. They contended that the injuries sustained by the appellants were simple in nature and could have been self-inflicted.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants acted in self-defense |
|
| Prosecution failed to explain injuries on the appellants |
|
| Appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder |
|
| Injuries sustained by the appellants were simple in nature |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder.
- Whether the appellants acted in self-defense.
- Whether the prosecution was obligated to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder. | Yes | The court relied on the testimony of the injured eyewitness (PW-19) and the recovery of weapons from the appellants. |
| Whether the appellants acted in self-defense. | No | The court found that the complainant party was not armed, and the appellants were the aggressors. |
| Whether the prosecution was obligated to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants. | No | The court noted that the injuries sustained by the appellants were simple and could have been self-inflicted. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 1454 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to determine the conditions under which the prosecution is required to explain injuries on the accused. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants acted in self-defense | Rejected. The court found that the appellants were the aggressors and the complainant party was not armed. |
| Prosecution failed to explain injuries on the appellants | Rejected. The court held that the injuries were simple and could have been self-inflicted. |
| Appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder | Accepted. The court relied on the eyewitness testimony and recovery of weapons. |
The following authorities were viewed by the court as follows:
Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 1454*: The court followed this authority to clarify that the prosecution is not always obligated to explain injuries on the accused, especially if the injuries are simple and could be self-inflicted.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent and credible eyewitness testimony of PW-19, who was also an injured party. The recovery of weapons from the appellants further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that the injuries sustained by the appellants were simple in nature and could have been self-inflicted, thus not requiring an explanation from the prosecution.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Eyewitness Testimony (PW-19) | 40% |
| Recovery of Weapons | 30% |
| Simple Nature of Injuries on Appellants | 20% |
| Appellants were the aggressors | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The court stated, “Upon appreciation of evidence and on well considered reasonings, the trial court as well as the High Court rightly convicted the appellants/accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and other offences.” The court also noted, “Merely because the occurrence happened in front of the house of the appellants, it cannot be said that the complainant party were the aggressors.” The court further observed, “It cannot be held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so, the prosecution case should be disbelieved.”
Key Takeaways
- An accused can be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if they are part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder.
- The prosecution is not always obligated to explain injuries sustained by the accused, especially if the injuries are simple and could be self-inflicted.
- The court will consider the entire incident to determine who the aggressors were, and the location of the incident is not the sole determining factor.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an accused can be held liable for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if they are part of an unlawful assembly with the common intention to commit murder. The court also reiterated that the prosecution is not always obligated to explain injuries on the accused, especially if they are minor and could be self-inflicted. This case reinforces the principles of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, confirming the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. The court found that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, and they did not act in self-defense. The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony and the concept of vicarious liability in criminal law.