REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 OF 2007

RAMESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272 OF 2007

AJIT SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1273 OF 2007

RAJESH & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2007

RAJ BIR … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1. All these appeals by grant of leave arise from the

judgment dated 25

th

May, 2006 passed by the Punjab and

Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 918-DB of 2003

and as such they were heard together and are being

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2007, Criminal

Appeal No. 1273 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1274 of

2007 have been filed by the appellants against the

judgment of conviction and sentence whereas Criminal

2

Appeal No.1272 of 2007 has been filed against the acquittal

of accused Chander Bhan and Lachhman.

3. The prosecution started on the basis of the report

given by PW.1, Randhir before the Assistant Sub-Inspector

of Police in Civil Hospital, Jind on 21.4.1997 at 1.30 P.M.

According to the First Information Report, there was

litigation between Baba Krishangir and Baba Joragir in

respect of 105 Killas of land in village Pokhri Kheri which

travelled upto the Supreme Court and decided in favour of

Baba Krishangir, who was in possession thereof. It has

been alleged that in August last year, followers of Joragir

fired at Krishangir at Jind Court as Joragir wanted to take

possession of the land. Informant claims to be the supporter

of Krishangir and according to him on 21.4.1997 at 7 A.M.

he along with other persons including PW.3, Vedpal were at

the Dera and at that point of time appellant Rajbir

(appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1274 of 2007), appellants

Rajesh, Dharamvir son of Rajmal, Hoshiara, Jage,

Dharamvir son of Maha Singh, Ram Mehar alias Babru

3

Dass and Prem Singh (appellants in Criminal Appeal

No.1273 of 2007) and Ramesh (appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.628 of 2007) besides the accused persons acquitted by

the trial court and those acquitted by the appellate court

variously armed came to the place of occurrence from the

house of Joragir situated nearby. It has been alleged by the

prosecution that Chander Bhan, since acquitted by the

High Court, gave exhortation to other accused persons to

teach a lesson to the followers of Krishangir present there

for not allowing them to enter the land, whereupon all the

accused persons attacked them. This was protested by

Krishan a supporter of the Dera, who came to the place of

occurrence on hearing the noise and asked the accused

persons as to why they were assaulting the followers of

Krishangir. At this, appellant Dharambir son of Rajmal

fired from his pistol which caused injury on the face of

Krishan and he fell down there. Prem Singh fired from his

pistol at PW.3 Vedpal on his right shoulder. Appellant Jage

as also appellant Teka gave lathi blows on the head and

right arm respectively of the informant’s brother, namely,

4

Ramesh. Appellants Ramesh and Ram Mehar besides

another accused assaulted Raj Kumar causing injuries on

the left arm, left hand and head. Appellant Dharambir son

of Maha Singh gave two lathi blows on the head of the

informant, namely, Randhir. Appellant Rajbir gave gandasa

blow on the shoulder of Phool Singh, whereas appellant

Hoshiara gave lathi blows on the right hip of the informant.

Appellant Rajesh is alleged to have shot at the informant

from his pistol causing injury on his left hand. During the

fight, according to the prosecution, Darbara son of Chhotu

Ram and Rajpal son of Nafe Singh came to the spot and

witnessed the occurrence and the accused persons on their

arrival ran away from the place of occurrence. Bhim Singh

son of Nafe Singh took the injured Krishan to the Civil

Hospital, Jind in a tractor but he succumbed to the injury

in the way.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case

under Sections 302, 307, 448, 449, 323, 324, 148 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and

5

54/59 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellants

and other accused persons since acquitted by the trial court

as also the appellate court. Police after usual investigation

submitted the charge-sheet and the accused persons were

committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial. Charges

were framed and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution

altogether examined 20 witnesses and exhibited a large

number of documents. Out of the witnesses examined by

the prosecution PW.1 Randhir, PW.2 Ajit, PW.3 Vedpal and

PW.4 Rajpal, claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence

and had sustained injuries. All of them in their evidence

had supported the case of the prosecution.

5. The trial court relying on the evidence of the eye-

witnesses and doctors who examined them and who

conducted the postmortem report came to the conclusion

that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond

all reasonable doubt so far as the appellants herein and the

respondents Chander Bhan and Lachhman are concerned.

6

Accordingly, all of them have been held guilty under

Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 and

323/149, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 and

449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

various terms of imprisonment, including imprisonment for

life under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 7, namely, Rajesh, Dharambir and

Prem Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2007 have also

been held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years

and fine of Rs.500/-. However, while convicting them the

trial court has acquitted altogether nine accused persons. It

is relevant here to state that besides the appellants herein,

the trial court had also convicted accused Teka, Lachhman,

Chander Bhan and Ramphal and all of them have been

acquitted by the High Court in appeal. It is further relevant

here to state that against acquittal of Chander Bhan and

Lachhman, appeal has been filed but the acquittal of Teka

and Ramphal has not been assailed.

7

6. Accused persons held guilty by the trial court

preferred appeal and the High court on appreciation of the

evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants herein

assembled in the house of Joragir variously armed with

pistol, gun, lathis, gandasa and bricks and the appellants

were the members of the unlawful assembly and in

furtherance of their common object caused the death of

Krishan. Accordingly the High Court maintained the

conviction of the appellants, excepting Teka, Lachhman,

Chander Bhan and Ramphal. While acquitting respondents

Chander Bhan and Lachhman and other two convicts, the

High Court on appraisal of the materials came to the

conclusion that they have been falsely roped in the case.

7. We have heard the Counsel representing the

parties.

8. It has been contended that the conviction of the

appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code is illegal as the appellants cannot be said to be the

8

members of unlawful assembly and committed the offence

in prosecution of their common object. They submit that all

the appellants have to be held guilty for their individual acts

and it cannot be said that when they assembled their

common object was to cause the death of deceased Krishan

or cause injuries to the injured persons. Mr. D.P. Singh,

learned counsel particularly emphasized that there being no

overt act alleged against appellant Ramesh of causing injury

to the deceased, he cannot be roped with the aid of Section

149 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. We do not find any substance in the submission

of the learned counsel. In our opinion the common object of

an unlawful assembly has to be gathered from the nature of

the assembly, arms possessed by them and the behaviour of

the assembly at or before the occurrence. It is an inference

which has to be deduced from the facts and circumstances

of each case. To attract the mischief of Section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that each of the

accused must commit some illegal overt act. When the

9

assembly is found to be unlawful and if offence is

committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in

prosecution of the common object, every member of the

unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed

by another member of the assembly. It has to be borne in

mind that an assembly which is not unlawful when

assembled may subsequently become an unlawful

assembly. In the present case there is overwhelming

material to show that the appellants variously armed,

including the fire arms assembled at one place and

thereafter came to the place of occurrence and started

assault together and when protested by the deceased, one of

the members of the unlawful assembly shot him dead and

some of them caused injury by fire arm, gandasa, lathi, etc.

to others. All of them have come and left the place of

occurrence together. From what has been found above,

there is no escape from the conclusion that appellants were

the members of the unlawful assembly and offences have

been committed in pursuance of the common object and

hence, each of them shall be liable for the offence

10

committed by any other member of the assembly. In our

opinion, the trial court correctly held them guilty with the

aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which has

rightly been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.

10.The view which we have taken finds support from the

decision of Chandra Bihari Gautam and others vs. State

of Bihar, SCC 2002 (9) SCC 208, in which it has been held

as follows :

“8. Section 149 has two parts. First part deals

with the commission of an offence by a member

of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the

common object of that assembly and the second

part deals with the liability of the members of

the unlawful assembly who knew that an

offence was likely to be committed in

prosecution of the object for which they had

assembled. Even if the common object of the

unlawful assembly is stated to be

apprehending Nawlesh Singh only, the fact that

the accused persons had attacked the house of

the complainant at the dead of night and were

armed with deadly weapons including the

guns, and used petrol bombs, proves beyond

doubt that they knew that in prosecution of the

alleged initial common object, murders were

likely to be committed. The knowledge of the

consequential action in furtherance of the initial

common object is sufficient to attract the

applicability of Section 149 for holding the

members of the unlawful assembly guilty for

the commission of the offence by any member of

11

such assembly. In this case the appellants,

along with others, have been proved to have

formed an unlawful assembly, the common

object of which was to commit murder and

arson and in prosecution of the said common

object they raided the house of the informant

armed with guns and committed offence. The

courts below have, therefore, rightly held that

the accused persons formed an unlawful

assembly, the common object of which was to

commit the murder of the informant and his

family members and in prosecution of the said

common object six persons were killed. The

appellants were also proved to have hired the

services of some extremists for the purposes of

eliminating the family of the complainant.”

11.So far as the acquittal of respondents Chander Bhan

and Lachhman is concerned the High Court on appraisal of

the material came to the conclusion that they have falsely

been roped. The aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at

on appraisal of the evidence. The view taken by the High

Court, in our opinion, is one of the possible views and that

being so, order of acquittal needs no interference by this

Court.

12

12.In the result, we do not find any merit in all these

appeals and same are dismissed accordingly.

..………..……………………………… .J.

(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

…………………………………………… J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi,

October 21, 2010.

13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 OF 2007

RAMESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272 OF 2007

AJIT SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1273 OF 2007

RAJESH & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2007

RAJ BIR … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

Dear

Draft Judgment in the above matter is sent herewith for

perusal and kind consideration.

With regards,

(Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)

18.10.2010

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi

14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 OF 2007

RAMESH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1272 OF 2007

AJIT SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1273 OF 2007

RAJESH & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1274 OF 2007

RAJ BIR … APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHANDER BHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

TO BE PRONOUNCED BY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD

ON

21.10.2010 (THURSDAY)

15