0

It is not necessary for every person constituting an unlawful assembly to play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case title: Parshuram Vs State of M.P

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022

Decided on: 03.11.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice B.V Nagarathna, Hon’ble Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra.

 

Hon’ble Justices stated that “the Constitution Bench has held that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. What has to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to be a member of an unlawful assembly, i.e. he has to be one of the persons constituting the assembly and that he had entertained the common object along with the other members of the assembly.”

 

BRIEF FACTS:

The complainant party’s buffalo had damaged the shed, which the appellant had built on the village passage for the cattle. As a result, the appellant had driven the buffalo away by beating it with a lathi. When the appellant and the other accused individuals arrived at the man’s home after that, the man fled the house in terror. After smashing through the doors, the accused people beat three people inside the house before leaving.

Furthermore, the accused individuals, armed with deadly weapons like a sword, barchi, lathi, and a domestic bomb, waylaid the complainant party and caused injuries as they were riding a tractor to the police station to file the complaint. Serious injuries were sustained during this and one has died, leading to the filing of a formal complaint for violations of Sections 302, 323, 452, 148, and 149 of the IPC. The trail court sentenced the accused and the High Court subsequently upheld the Trial Court’s decision, which led to the accused parties’ conviction. As a result, the Supreme Court is hearing this appeal.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After carefully analysing the evidence, the court determined that the current appellants were clearly members of the unlawful assembly. Without a doubt, the present appellants play no specific role in assaulting the deceased.

Furthermore, based on the evidence presented, it is unclear whether the common purpose of the unlawful assembly was to cause the deceased’s death. It is entirely possible that the accused did not intend to cause the death of anyone from the complainant party. It is conceivable that the accused came together solely to teach the complainant party a lesson.

They therefore concluded that there is a benefit of doubt on appellant. The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would be unsustainable. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had the intent to kill the deceased. Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC replaces the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

 

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

0

Test identification parade is not mandatory in investigation: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , ,

Case title: Kishore & Ors. vs The state of Punjab

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2011

Decided on: 07.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present appeal is from the judgment of high court of Punjab and Haryana. The trail court has sentenced the five accused and they appeal to the high court. The high court acquitted the accused no. 1 and 4 but confirmed the conviction of the present appellants. Hence this appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

It should be noted that all five of the accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC, which is “rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.” Section 146 of the IPC states that whenever an unlawful assembly or any member thereof uses force or violence to achieve the common object of such assembly, every member of the unlawful assembly is guilty of rioting. As a result, the condition precedent for triggering Section 148 of the IPC is the presence of an unlawful assembly. Section 141 of the IPC requires that the unlawful assembly consist of five or more people. With the help of Section 149, all five accused were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 460 and 302. Section 149 contains vicarious liability for all members of an unlawful assembly for acts committed with a common purpose.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellants contended that despite the fact that the two eyewitnesses, Khushbir Singh and Narinder Kaur, did not know the accused, a test identification parade was not conducted. The learned counsel pointed out that the most important witnesses, Love Preet Kaur and Amritpal Kaur, who were 17 and 8 years old, were not examined. Satbir Singh, Narinder Kaur’s husband and injured witness, has not been examined. The learned counsel called our attention to the evidence of Khushbir Singh and Narinder Kaur, claiming that it is completely doubtful and cannot be believed at all.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Punjab argued that both Khushbir Singh and Narinder Kaur had seen the accused for an extended period of time during the incident, and that their examination had taken place within one year of the incident. Thus, the test identification parade was unnecessary. He argued that the failure to hold the test identification parade was not fatal to the prosecution because Khushbir Singh and Narinder Kaur’s testimony was reliable.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that a test identification parade is not mandatory. It is useful when eyewitnesses did not know the accused prior to the incident. The consequences of the prosecution’s failure to conduct a test identification parade will vary depending on the circumstances of each case. After reviewing Khushbir Singh and Narinder Kaur’s statements, the court determined that they had not seen the accused prior to the incident and thus could not provide their names.

The court determined that Narinder Kaur had not even stated that she witnessed any of the accused assaulting the deceased. Khushbir Singh’s version of the accused assaulting the deceased is extremely vague. Another significant point is that Khushbir Singh stated that his nieces, Love Preet Kaur and Amritpal Kaur, woke him up. Despite accepting that Love Preet Kaur was 16 to 17 years old, the prosecution has not examined her. Similarly, Satbir Singh, Narinder Kaur’s husband and injured witness, has not been examined. The prosecution has not provided any reason for not questioning these two critical witnesses. In the absence of any credible evidence, it is extremely difficult to connect any accused to the deceased’s injuries. As a result, the conviction for violating Section 302 of the IPC cannot be upheld.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click here to read judgement