Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Involving Unlawful Assembly: Shankaraya Naik vs. State of Karnataka (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 22, 2008

Judges: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the accused acted as part of an unlawful assembly, even if the common intention to commit murder wasn’t explicitly proven? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Shankaraya Naik & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, dealing with a criminal appeal arising from a murder conviction. The bench, comprising Justices S.B. Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi, examined the High Court’s decision to convict the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), focusing on the concept of unlawful assembly and common intention.

Case Background:

The case revolves around a land dispute within a closely-related family residing in Janatha Colony, Raichur District. B.K. Naik had mortgaged a piece of land (more than 5 acres) to his brother Rekhya Naik (father of the accused). Balappa Naik (deceased), son of B.K. Naik, who was working in Bombay, saved some money to redeem the land. This attempt to redeem the land was not welcomed by the accused, who had been enjoying its usufruct, leading to animosity between the parties. On August 25, 1995, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Balappa Naik, along with other witnesses, was sitting outside their houses when the accused, armed with clubs and sickles, attacked Balappa Naik and others who intervened. The incident resulted in severe injuries to Balappa Naik, who later died. Other family members and neighbors who tried to intervene also sustained injuries.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

The trial court convicted A4 (Sriramulu Naik) under Section 302 of the IPC for causing the death of Balappa. A5 (Gopal Naik) and A6 (Reddy Naik) were convicted under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC for attacking Balappa. A2 to A6 were convicted for assaulting the injured witnesses under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC. A1 (Lachamappa Naik), A7 (Nagappa Naik), and A8 (Hanumantha Naik) were acquitted due to the lack of evidence of individual overt acts. Two appeals were filed in the High Court: Criminal Appeal No. 911/1997 by accused Nos. 2 to 6 challenging their conviction, and Criminal Appeal No. 45/1998 by the State, challenging the acquittal of all accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the acquittal of A1, A7, and A8.

The High Court re-examined the evidence and observed that there were six injured witnesses, closely related to the deceased, and independent witnesses (PWs 11 and 12) who had tried to rescue the deceased. The High Court also noted that the motive was proved as Balappa was trying to recover the mortgaged land, leading to ill will. The High Court upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 6, stating that they formed an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC and were liable to be convicted under Section 302/149 of the IPC.

Legal Framework:

The judgment refers to the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 141 IPC: Defines unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
  ✓ To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;
  ✓ To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process;
  ✓ To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence;
  ✓ By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right;
  ✓ By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
• Section 149 IPC: Defines 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.
• Section 302 IPC: Defines punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 324 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 326 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Arguments:

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

• The High Court was not justified in allowing the State appeal because the Trial Court had given valid reasons for holding that Section 149 of the IPC was not applicable.
• There was a delay in lodging the FIR, which allowed the prosecution to fabricate a false story. The incident occurred at 6:30 p.m. on August 25, 1995, but the FIR was lodged at 3:00 a.m. on August 26, 1995.
• PW24 Shankaramma, the wife of the deceased, gave a vacillating statement, undermining the prosecution’s case.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The prosecution’s story was supported by eight injured witnesses, including independent witnesses (PWs 11 and 12).
• The accused came to the scene armed with lethal weapons, and none of them sustained injuries, indicating a planned attack with the common object of committing murder.
• The injured witnesses and the deceased reached the hospital by 8:00 p.m., which was not a delayed response, considering the circumstances and the number of injured persons.
• Minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses were natural under the circumstances.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the State appeal, considering the Trial Court’s reasons for holding that Section 149 of the IPC was not applicable?
2. Whether there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which could have allowed the fabrication of a false story?
3. Whether the vacillating statement of PW24 Shankaramma, the wife of the deceased, undermined the prosecution’s case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities:

The judgment refers to several judgments of this Court to support its conclusion on Section 149 IPC.

Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants regarding the applicability of Section 149, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the reliability of the witnesses.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court:

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

The specific judgments relied upon by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court were used to reinforce the principle of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, holding each member responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the common object.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the presence of multiple injured witnesses, the fact that the accused were armed, and the existence of animosity between the parties. The Court also considered the High Court’s detailed examination of the evidence and its conclusion that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the offense.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

[ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the State appeal, considering the Trial Court’s reasons for holding that Section 149 of the IPC was not applicable?]

Flowchart:

Accused came armed and attacked → Animosity existed between parties → High Court’s reasoning was sound → Common intention to commit offense inferred → Section 149 IPC applicable → High Court’s decision upheld

Key Takeaways:

• When individuals participate in an unlawful assembly with a common object, each member can be held liable for the actions of the group, even if they did not individually commit the act.
• The presence of multiple injured witnesses strengthens the prosecution’s case and makes it more difficult for the accused to challenge the verdict.
• Delays in lodging an FIR can be excused if there are reasonable explanations, such as the need to transport injured individuals to the hospital.

Development of Law:

The case reinforces the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC, emphasizing that members of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object, even if their individual roles are not specifically defined.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shankaraya Naik & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reaffirms the importance of Section 149 of the IPC in cases involving unlawful assemblies. The judgment highlights that if individuals come together with a common unlawful purpose, they are all responsible for the actions committed in pursuit of that purpose.