One of the factions was lead by Shivaram-Accused No. Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan has filed before this Court details of the custody undergone by the four acquitted accused till date. About two months later, on 20 October 1968 an employee of the National Hotel sustained some injuries and was removed to the hospital in a rickshaw. On appeal the High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed it. It is against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court that Criminal Appeal No.
In the instant case, repeated gun shots fired by Ram Chandra Sah on the person of deceased Ram Udgar Sah, and the injuries caused by lathis by other accused persons on the complainant and his second brother on their heads, clearly demonstrate the objective to cause murder of these persons. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeals, learned Addl. Four accused filed one petition and Ram Chandra Sah filed another special leave petition. Such that if a crime is done by 2 or more people but less than 5 then section 149 is not applicable whereas section 34 is applicable on those offences. Neither Section 34 nor Section 149 of the Penal Code is, therefore, attracted. As the accused persons denied the charges and wanted to be tried the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and also exhibited a large number of documents.
The High Court has recorded plausible as well as probable conclusion. Banumathi have upheld a Madras High Court judgment in Joseph vs. For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the crime, are some of the relevant considerations. Members of an unlawful assembly may have community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 Indian Penal Code may be different on different members of the same assembly, State of Maharashtra v. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, even if the prosecution story as a whole is to be accepted the four accused in question cannot be made liable for the offence of murder with the aid of Section 149. On appeal the Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
All the injured respondents were examined on the same night, i. As a matter of fact, accused Ram Chander Sah took the plea of alibi saying that he was being treated for Jaundice by Dr. There is a difference between object and intention, for though their object is common, the intention of the several members may differ and indeed may be similar only in respect that they are all unlawful, while the element of participation in action, which is the leading feature of Sec. It provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides that 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.
Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of time. The informant alleged that his brother Ram Udgar Sah sustained pellet wounds in his chest, neck and mouth. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. Furthermore, it additionally deals with open public nuisance, prevention of offenses and maintenance of wife, child, and parents. Accused-1 beat with him plough-rod. Here the accused persons had gone to the house of the complainant fully armed with gun and lathis.
Sita Ram Sah and Jagdish Sah have passed away and, therefore, appeal qua them stood abated. The injuries suffered by respondents are not at all proportionate and reasonable as compared to the injuries sustained by the deceased. After their successful attempt, they proceeded in the streets by showing the heads of the deceased and rising slogans. Singh submits that the High Court was not correct in holding that respondents did not exceed the right of private defence. He was found dead the next morning. It was established in 1973 and came into power on 1 April 1974. As the members of the assembly knew that such offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object.
Mere membership of an unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the offence is sufficient. We, thus, do not find merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Having reached the Bharat Lodge the mob became violent and damaged the furniture, the glass panes and some of the members of the mob went to the extent of stealing away the cash box which was kept in the lodge, proceded near the chawl belonging to Jogindra Singh, and set fire to some of its doors and other property including a scooter. Common object under Section 149 must be one of the objects mentioned in Section 141. It is also well settled that if death had been caused in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, it would not be necessary to record a definite or specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. Undoubtedly, commission of an overt act by such a person would be one of the tests to prove that he shared the common object, but it is not the sole test.
A dispute had arisen between the two groups three days before the date of incident in question, which incident was brought to the knowledge of the villagers by the informant and Panches had advised both the groups not to involve in any altercation. It is true that so far as common object is concerned no prior concert is required. Open cabinets may also give a contemporary contact that is minimalist that house that is old does not look like a gallery. Accused 2 to 5 beat him with weapons. No X-Ray report or any other 5supplementary reports were placed on record.
Other injuries were on the left ring finger at the level of second phalangial joint and on the left shoulder joint. The situation, in the present case, is altogether different. It was further alleged by the informant that accused No. According to the learned counsel, the High Court has correctly discarded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as the witnesses have successively made improvements in the prosecution version. They were encircled in the field of Hirwa, which was in the Thakur Baba Har.