Dismissed

Jaswant Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022/1686/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three criminal appeals filed by convicts challenging their conviction and sentence for murder and dacoity. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through eye witnesses and medical evidence. It applied the principle of joined liability under Section 149 IPC, dismissing the appeals and directing appellants to serve the trial court's sente

What did the court decide?

All three criminal appeals dismissed; appellants directed to serve the sentences awarded by the lower trial court.

Jaswant Kumar and Ors. Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RESERVED ON 1.8.2022 DELIVERED ON 17.11.2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW. Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1686 of 2013 Appellants :- i). Jaswant Kumar

¶5

ii). Balwan Kumar iii). Dhanwant Kumar

¶6

Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Ripu Daman Shahi,

¶7

Shri Sunil Kumar Singh.

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Vishwas Shukla,

¶9

Addl. Government Advocate and

¶10

2. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1648 of 2013 Appellant :- Ramanand Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Ripu Daman Shahi,

¶11

Amicus Curiae.

¶12

Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Vishwas Shukla,

¶13

A.G.A.

¶14

and

¶15

3. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1665 of 2013 Appellant :- Babboo @ Vijay Prakash Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Ripu Daman Shahi,

¶16

Amicus Curiae.

¶17

Counsel for Respondent :- Shri Vishwas Shukla,

¶18

Addl. Government Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶20

(Per Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J for the Bench)

¶21

These criminal appeals have been preferred by the convicts/ appellants against one common judgement and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.1030/2010 arising out of Crime No.259 /2010, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and

¶22

¶23

Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act registered at Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki (State Vs. Jaswant and others whereby all the convicts/appellants were found guilty and sentenced under the aforementioned Sections.

¶24

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:-

¶25

A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No.259 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act at Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki on the basis of a written report presented by the complainant Prem Chand Verma.

¶26

It was stated in the written report that Sunita, daughter of Holi Ram, brother-in-law (Saadhoo) of the complainant was married to Jaswant, one year ahead of the incident. Jaswant used to beat and harass Sunita, therefore she came back and started living at her father's house. Holi Ram the father of Sunita sent information to Jaswant many times to take along Sunita but Jaswant did not do so. Thereafter, Sunita filed a case for maintenance against Jaswant in the court whose date was on 7.7.2010 (a day ahead of the incident). On the date of incident i.e. 8.7.2010, the complainant alongwith his elder brother Ram Sewak Verma reached at the house of Holi Ram at about

¶27

¶28

8.00 A.M. Ram Sewak used to do 'pairvi' in the court, of the case filed against Jaswant. For that reason, Jaswant was very annoyed with Ram Sewak. On the date of incident at about 8.00 A.M., Jaswant came to the house of Holi Ram and asked to withdraw the case of maintenance filed by Sunita and abused him and threatened to kill Sunita and Ram Sewak. He told Ram Sewak that since he does 'pairvi' of the case, he would not spare him alive. After that, he left the house of Holi Ram but came again at 1.30 P.M. alongwith his brother Balwant Kumar, Dhanwant Kumar and two others Ramanand and Bablu Verma. They all were armed with Bankas ( sharp edged weapon) and entered the Holi Ram's house abusing and threatening. They all tried to drag Sunita. When she resisted, Jaswant assaulted her with Banka on her right hand and she got injured. When his brother Ram Sewak tried to save her, they all assaulted Ram Sewak with Bankas in their hands, on his head and neck and killed him brutally. Thereafter, they all left the place showing Bankas, abusing and threatening the villagers also. Due to this incident, all the villagers got frightened and they all closed themselves behind the doors. The old people and children started crying in their houses. The incident was witnessed by the complainant himself and his brother-in-law Holi Ram. Sunita in injured condition and his brother Ram Sewak's dead body were lying at the spot.

¶29

¶30

After the F.I.R., investigation was made. Sunita was medically examined and the inquest report of the dead body of Ram Sewak was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against all the accused convicts/appellants. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Sessions Court framed charges against the accused appellants wherein they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

¶32

the following witnesses :-

¶33

(i) P.W.1- Prem Chand, the complainant.

¶34

(ii) P.W.2- Smt. Sunita, injured.

¶35

(iii) P.W.3- Rajendra Prasad, scribe of the written report.

¶36

(iv) P.W.4- Indresh Kumar, a witness of Panchayat Nama.

¶37

(v) P.W.-5 - Holi Ram, an eye witness.

¶38

(vi) P.W- .6 Bihari Lal, a witness of recovery of blood stained and plain soil from the spot.

¶39

(vii) P.W.7- Dr. Mridul Pandey who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of deceased Ram Sewak. (viii) P.W-8- Constable Mohd. Mahfooz Rehman who prepared the chik and concerned G.D. of the F.I.R. (ix) P.W.9- Sub Inspector Balram Yadav who investigated the case and submitted the chargesheet. x). P.W.-10 Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava who submitted X-ray report of injured Sunita Devi.

¶40

¶41

xi). P.W.-11 Parmanand Ram, a witness of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Banka and other material exhibits collected from the scene of the crime.

¶42

xii). P.W.-12 Dr. Aadesh Kumar Saxena, who medically examined the injured Sunita.

¶43

Apart from above oral evidence relevant documents were also proved as exhibits which are as under:-

¶44

(i) Exhibit Ka-1- Written report;

¶45

(ii) Exhibit Ka-2- Recovery memo of plain and blood stained soil.

¶46

iii). Exhibit Ka-3- Post Mortem Examination Report.

¶47

iv). Exhibit Ka-4- Chik F.I.R.

¶48

v). Exhibit Ka-5- Concerned G.D.

¶49

vi) Exhibit Ka-6- G.D. Rawanagi.

¶50

(vii) Exhibit Ka-7- Fard Baramadgi

¶51

(viii) Exhibit Ka-8 - Inquest Report of the deceased.

¶52

(ix) Exhibit Ka-9 Police Form No.13.

¶53

(x) Exhibit Ka-10- Photo Nash (Police Form No.379).

¶54

xi) Exhibit Ka-11- Report to C.M.O., Barabanki for conducting post mortem examination.

¶55

xii). Exhibit Ka-12- Letter to Reserved Inspector for getting conducted Post Mortem Examination.

¶56

xiii). EXhibit Ka-13 -Specimen Seal.

¶57

xiv) Exhibit Ka-14- Site plan of the place of incident.

¶58

xv) Exhibit Ka-15- X-ray report of Sunita.

¶59

(xvi) Exhibit Ka-16- Memo of arrest and recovery of blood stained Banka.

¶60

xvii). Exhibit Ka-17 Site plan of place of recovery of

¶61

¶62

Banka.

¶63

xviii). Exhibit Ka-18 -Chargesheet.

¶64

xix). Exhibit Ka-19 Medico Legal Examination Report of Sunita.

¶65

xx). Exhibit Ka-20- Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow.

¶66

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the convicts/ appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) wherein all the accused persons denied the crime and submitted that all the witnesses have deposed falsely. Documents too have been prepared wrongly. Accused Jaswant stated also that he has been implicated due to enmity. Ram Sewak was killed by his unknown enemies and the complainant implicated him falsely due to enmity of case filed by Sunita. Accused Balwant Kumar and Dhanwant Kumar additionally stated that they are innocent. They have been implicated in the crime as they are the brothers of Jaswant and they both have separate living from Jaswant. Accused Ramanand additionally stated that he has been implicated falsely as he is a relative of Jaswant. Accused Babbu @ Vijay Prakash also stated that he has been implicated in this case as he is a relative of Jaswant. No defence evidence was adduced by any of the accused appellants though opportunity was provided by the trial court.

¶67

On completion of evidence, after hearing the

¶68

¶69

arguments of both the sides, learned trial court relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. complainant Prem Chand and Holi Ram Verma and also on the evidence of injured witness Sunita and other evidences came to the conclusion that all the accused appellants reached the house of Holi Ram and they tried to drag Sunita and when she resisted, assaulted her with Banka. Thereafter they also assaulted Ram Sewak and killed him. The motive behind the incident was the maintenance case filed by Sunita of which the deceased used to do 'pairvi'.

¶70

Learned tried court found that the oral evidence given by witnesses of facts have been corroborated by the medical evidence produced by the prosecution. The weapon of offence was also recovered and in the forensic science laboratory examination, the human blood was found on that weapon. The presence of the eye witnesses were found very natural and reliable.

¶71

After appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that all the accused appellants in furtherance of common object assembled, armed with deadly weapons i.e. Bankas and reached at the spot and assaulted Sunita Devi, P.W.-2 caused severe injuries to Ram Sewak with intention to kill him, resultantly Ram Sewak died. Due to the incident caused, the villagers got frightened a chaos occurred in the village and public life got disturbed. The trial court held all the accused persons

¶72

¶73

guilty under Sections 147, 148, 307 readwith 149, 302 readwith 149 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and punished them in the following manner :-

¶74

*** Sessions Trial No.1030/2010**

¶75

Sl .	Names of the convicts	Section	PUNISHMENT with Fine	Further sentence in
N				default of
o.				payment of fine
1.	Jaswant Kumar, Balwant Kumar, Dhanwant Kumar, Ramanand and Babbu @ Vijay Prakash	147	One year R.I.
2.	Jaswant Kumar, Balwant Kumar, Dhanwant Kumar, Ramanand Babbu @ Vijay Prakash	148	Two years' R.I. each
3.	Jaswant Kumar, Balwant Kumar, Dhanwant Kumar, Ramanand Babbu @ Vijay Prakash	307 readwith 149	Seven Years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- each.	Six months.
4.	Jaswant Kumar, Balwant Kumar, Dhanwant	302 readwith 149	Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each.	One year Additional Imprisonment each.

¶76

¶77

Kumar, Ramanand Babbu Vijay Prakash	@
5. Jaswant Kumar, Balwant Kumar, Dhanwant Kumar, Ramanand Babbu Vijay Prakash	@	Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendme nt Act	Six R.I.	months'

¶78

Learned trial court directed all sentences to run concurrently.

¶79

Being aggrieved of the above conviction and sentences, the convict appellants preferred these criminal appeals.

¶80

Heard Shri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1686 of 2013, as Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeal Nos.1648 of 2013 and 1665 of 2013, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1686 of 2013 and Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶81

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgement and order is bad in the eye of law and against the evidence on record. The prosecution failed to establish the charges framed against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence and all the witnesses are

¶82

¶83

interested witnesses. The F.I.R. is ante time. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. The injury report of injured namely Sunita does not support the prosecution case as the injury report shows that all injuries were simple in nature. The incident took place on 8.7.2010 and the injured Sunita was medically examined on 9.10.2010 at 1.00 p.m. This creates doubt. No motive to commit the murder of deceased was there. The motive has not been established.

¶84

Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the statement of P.W.-2 Sunita, the role of assault on her is assigned to the accused Jaswant and she did not see who assaulted the deceased as she fell down inside the room. Learned counsel further submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses of facts as well as the facts narrated in the F.I.R., hence the impugned judgement and order should be set aside and the appellants should be acquitted.

¶85

Contrary to it, learned A.G.A. submitted that the motive has very well been proved by the prosecution as the deceased used to do 'pairvi' of the case for maintenance filed by Sunita, the wife of Jaswant, one of the appellants. Sunita is wife of Jaswant who due to maltreatment and torture meted out to her by Jaswant, was forced to live at the house of her father and filed suit for maintenance. These facts have been proved by Sunita P.w.-2 as well as

¶86

¶87

by P.W.-5 father of Sunita. He further submitted that medical evidence is in consonance with what has been stated in the F.I.R. A number of incised wounds have been found on the body of the deceased. In the medical examination, the doctor found incised wounds on the body of the injured Sunita also. He further submitted that lengthy cross examinations have been made from the witnesses of facts but no major contradictions have occurred in their cross examinations. He further submitted that the prosecution has established all the charges framed against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly believed the version of eye witnesses and formal witnesses and held guilty the accused persons and sentenced them, accordingly, hence the appeal should be dismissed.

¶88

Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶89

P.W.-1 Prem Chandra, the complainant has stated before the court that on the day of incident, he alongwith his elder brother Ram Sewak came to the house of Holi Ram at about 8.00 a.m. He also stated that his brother-inlaw (Saddhoo) Holi Ram's daughter was married to Jaswant but due to maltreatment and torture meted out by Jaswant, Sunita was forced to live in her father's house and she has filed a case for maintenance whose date was 7.7.2010. When he and his brother reached at the house

¶90

¶91

of Holi Ram, Jaswant also came there and started abusing. He (Jaswant) also threatened Sunita and his (complainant's brother) Ram Sewak to withdraw the case otherwise he would kill them. Giving these warnings and threats, Jaswant left the house and again came at about 1.30 p.m. alongwith Balwant, Dhanwant, Ramanand and Babboo @ Vijay Prakash armed with Bankas in their hands. All these persons intruded into the house of Holi Ram giving threats to kill. Jaswant caught Sunita's arm and tried to drag her. When Sunita resisted, Jaswant assaulted her with Banka on her right arm and when his brother (complainant's brother) Ram Sewak tried to save her, then Jaswant, Balwant, Dhanwant, Ramanand and Babboo @ Vijay Prakash, all assaulted Ram Sewak with Bankas in their hands and caused injuries of which Ram Sewak died on the spot. This witness has further stated that at the time of incident, he and his brother-in-law Holi Ram were present. The persons residing in the vicinity have gone to their houses because of fear and terror caused by all these accused persons. All the accused persons left showing Bankas and giving threats, on their motorcycles. This witness has proved the written report Exhibit Ka-1 and identified his signatures on it. A lengthy cross examination has been made with the witness by the defence for the appellants but no major or material contradictions could be brought there.

¶92

¶93

P.W.-2 is Sunita who got injured in the incident. She has stated before the trial court that she was married to accused Jaswant but he used to demand dowry and beat her, so she came back to her maternal house and filed a case for maintenance. The 'pairvi' of the case was being done by Ram Sewak (deceased). She has further stated that on the date of incident, she was in her maternal house. Besides her, her father, Ram Sewak and Prem Singh the elder brother of Ram Sewak in the house at that time. At about 8.00 a.m., Jaswant came to her house and asked her to withdraw the case otherwise he would kill Sunita. Thereafter, he gave threat to Ram Sewak as he was doing 'pairvi' of the case. Thereafter he left. Jaswant again came at about 1.30 p.m. alongwith Balwant, Dhanwant, Babboo @ Vijay Prakash and Ramanand who were present in the court. She has further stated that at that time, she was in the courtyard of her house. She ran towards the room and Jaswant also entered in the room and tried to drag her, when she did not come, Jaswant assaulted on her with Banka which hit her on right shoulder and on the finger of left hand. When she cried, her maternal uncle Ram Sewak came to save her. She fell down. Then all the accused ran to assault on Ram Sewak. They all killed Ram Sewak at a place inside the house, situated in front portion. She has further stated that she remained lying in the room itself in injured condition.

¶94

¶95

Police took her to Thana, Baddupur. Thereafter the police also took her to Baddupur Hospital but the doctor was not available there. So she remained at police station throughout the night. On the next day, police brought her to Barabanki Hospital where she was medically examined and on the next day, her X-ray was done. This witness has also been cross examined at length but no material contradictions could be brought by the counsel of the appellants. She has denied the suggestions given by the defence counsel that some dacoity occurred at her house wherein she got injured and her maternal uncle was killed. She also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.

¶96

P.W.-5 is Holi Ram, father of Sunita. The deceased was his brother-in-law (Saddhoo). The incident occurred inside the house of this witness. This witness was examined on 13.3.2012 in the court. He has stated that the incident occurred one and a half year ahead. His daughter Sunita was married to accused Jaswant. Jaswant used to beat and torture his daughter, so she came back and started living with him. Thereafter, he got filed a maintenance case on behalf of his daughter Sunita. 'Pairvi' of this case was being done by his brother-in-law Ram Sewak. He has further stated that on the date of incident, his brother-in-law Ram Sewak and his brother Prem Chandra came to his house at about 7-8 a.m. He has further stated that on the date of incident, all the accused

¶97

¶98

Jaswant, Dhanwant, Balwant and Babboo @ Vijay Prakash came to his house and all these accused persons intruded inside the house and tried to drag his daughter Sunita. When Sunita resisted, Jaswant assaulted her with Banka on her right shoulder. He again assaulted and that assault hit on her left hand cutting her finger. He ran to save her in between, the accused persons assaulted Ram Sewak on his neck. All the accused persons were armed with 'Bankas'. Prem Chand and he ran away to save their lives. Daughter remained lying in the room. This incident caused fear in the village and people shut their doors.

¶99

P.W.-7 is Dr. Mridul Pandey, Senior Consultant at District Hospital, Barabanki who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased Ram Sewak. In the post-mortemexamination, the doctor found the following ante mortem injuries :-

¶100

"1. Incised wound 17 cm. X 1 cm on upper part of neck in right side 5 cm below right ear, bone deep antero posteriorly placed.

¶101

2. Incised wound 15 cm X 1 cm on right side of head 3 cm below right ear bone deep antero posteriorly placed.

¶102

3. Incised wound 15 cm X 1 cm on right side of head just below right ear, bone deep. anterio posteriorly placed.

¶103

4. Incised wound 12 cm x 1/2 cm on right side of head 5 cm above right ear, bone deep. Right parital bone was fractured wound was anterio posteriorly placed.

¶104

5. Incised wound 6 cm X 1/2 cm on posterior aspect of head, bone deep, anterio posteriorly placed.

¶105

¶106

6. Incised wound 5 cm x 1/2 cm on posterior aspect of head, bone deep, anterio posteriorly placed.

¶107

7. Incised wound 6 cm X 1 cm skin deep on front of right elbow transverly placed.

¶108

8. Incised wound 7 cm X 1/2 cm in front of right elbow joint 3 cm away from injury no.1 muscle deep.

¶109

9. Incised wound 10 cm X 1 cm on front of left hand obliquely placed, bone deep.

¶110

10. Abrasion 3 cm X 1 cm on lateral aspect of upper part of left arm.

¶111

11. Abrasion left side of abdomen 3 cm X 1 cm.

¶112

12. Abrasion 7 cm X 7 cm on upper right part of chest.

¶113

13. Abrasion 1/2 cm X 1/2 cm on bridge of nose."

¶114

Besides above injuries, the doctor also found in the

¶115

internal examination of head and neck, right parietal bone fracture, membrances lacerated, brain had small hamotoma 2cm x 1 cm. Thorax lungs, trachea, bronchi, ribs were normal. Heart normal and 210 mg in weight major blood vessels of right side of neck are cut (incised). In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. This witness has proved the post mortem examination report. Exhibit Ka-3 written in his hand writing and identified his signatures over there. This witness has further stated that in his opinion, all the injuries of the deceased could have been caused by Banka. The time of death given by the doctor coincides with what has been stated in the F.I.R.

¶116

P.W.-12 is Dr. Aadesh Kumar Saxena, the doctor who medically examined the injured Sunita on 9.7.2010 and

¶117

¶118

found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of Sunita :-

¶119

"1. Injury No.1 Lacerated wound muscle deep 7.50 cm. X 2.00 cm over right shoulder.

¶120

2. Injury No.2 Abrasion 9.00 cm. X 1.5 cm over right side of neck and 2.5 cm above the right side joint of SC.

¶121

3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X skin deep over right hand 5.5 cm. below the injury no.1

¶122

4. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. X 0.5 cm X bone deep left side little finger and 1 cm below its base."

¶123

This witness advised X-ray of right hand of Sunita and opined that injury no.1, 2 and 3 were simple in nature and injury no.4 was kept under observation. In his opinion, injury no.1, 3 and 4 were caused by a sharped edged weapon while injury no.2 was caused by some blunt object. This witness has proved injury report Exhibit Ka-19 written in his hand writing and identified his signature over there. He has further stated that the injury no.1, 3 and 4 could be caused by weapon Banka.

¶124

P.W.-10 is Dr. Om Prakash Srivastava, who got done the X-ray of the right hand of Sunita and found fracture in little finger of her right hand. He proved his report as Exhibit Ka-5 and X-ray plates as material Exhibit-1. The evidence of eye witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 is quite natural and reliable. The presence of these witnesses is also established as P.W.-1 has gone there alongwith his deceased brother Ram Sewak. The presence of P.W.-5 is very natural as the incident occurred inside his house.

¶125

¶126

Presence of P.W-2 Sunita is also very natural as she was residing at the house of her father at the time of incident and she herself got injured in the incident. The medical evidence is in consistence with what has been narrated by the eye witnesses. The deceased had received 13 incised wounds on his person as has been depicted in the post mortem examination report.

¶127

The co accused persons were identified by Sunita very well in the dock and she was able to identify them as all of them were relatives of Jaswant, the husband of Sunita. The motive has been alleged and proved i.e. the case filed by Sunita for maintenance and deceased used to do pairvi of the case which has been proved by all the three witnesses of facts i.e. P.W.-1, 2 and 5. The involvement of all the appellants have very well been proved by the witnesses of facts. They all went to the house of P.W.-5 Holiram armed with deadly weapons 'Bankas'.

¶128

Once it is established that the accused appellants were members of unlawful assembly who committed offence, all the members shall be vicariously liable for the acts committed.

¶129

In State of Madya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash

¶130

and others : 2020 16 SCC 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

¶131

¶132

"9. After considering the cases on the point including Masalti, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court was set aside by this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod. Relevant paragraphs of the decision are:-

¶133

“22. We may at this stage consider the law of vicarious liability as stipulated in Section 149 IPC. The key expressions in Section 149 IPC are (Ramlal Devappa Rathod Case , SCC pp93-94, paras 2224):

¶134

(a) if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly;

¶135

(b) in prosecution of common object of that assembly;

¶136

(c) which the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object;

¶137

(d) every person who is a member of the same assembly is guilty of the offence.

¶138

This section makes both the categories of persons, those who committed the offence as also those who were members of the same assembly liable for the offences under Section 149 IPC, if other requirements of the section are satisfied. That is to say, if an offence is committed by any person of an unlawful assembly, which the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed, every member of that assembly is guilty of the offence. The law is clear that membership of unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold such members vicariously liable.

¶139

23. It would be useful to refer to certain decisions of this Court. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal4it was observed: SCC p. 93, para 47)

¶140

“47. It is well settled that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been

¶141

assigned to any accused. In other words, mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or

¶142

¶143

such which the members of the unlawful assembly knew were likely to be committed.”

¶144

Further, in Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar it was observed as under: (SCC p. 682, para 13) :-

¶145

“13. The law of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC is crystal clear that even the presence in the unlawful assembly, but with an active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.”

¶146

In the present case, it is very well established by the evidence led by prosecution that all the appellants formed unlawful assembly and they armed with deadly weapons 'Bankas' went to the house of Holiram and assaulted Sunita causing her injuries and assaulted Ram Sewak causing his death. The incident caused fear in he minds of the villagers and their routine life got disturbed. The motive of crime is also established.

¶147

Hence, keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, facts and circumstances, it is established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has rightly relied upon the evidence of eye witnesses and other evidences available on record. These appeals warrant no interference.

¶148

Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed.

¶149

The convicts/appellants are stated to be in jail, accordingly they shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶150

¶151

The Court appreciates the able assistance rendered by Shri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned Amicus Curiae in deciding the Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2013 and 1665 of 2013.

¶152

Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with lower Court record forthwith to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

¶153

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶154

Order Date:-17.11.2022 Shukla

¶155

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2022.11.17 16:08:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaswant Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wahid Ali and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow and Ors.

Om Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and Ors.

Moh.Iliyas and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow and Ors.

Prem Shanker Misra Vs State of U.P.

Gyanvati and Anr. Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Tripathi @ Monu Thru.Father Kunwar Sahab Tiwari Vs U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Min.of Home New Delhi and Ors.