Allowed¶25

Ruplal Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2024Cr.A(SJ)/683/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ruplal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 683 of 2012, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, decided 18 January 2024 by Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Keywords: unlawful assembly; common object; constructive criminal liability; Section 149 IPC; Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC; conviction of sole accused after acquittal of co-accused; strict construction of Section 149; five or more persons requirement under Section 141 IPC; Dalip Singh (1953) 2 SCC 36; Amar Singh (1987) 1 SCC 679; Nawadih P.S. Case No.0084/1997; Sessions Trial No.372 of 1998(A); separated trial; appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; appellant, who is on bail, discharged — sureties discharged of the liabilities of their bail bond. ¶25

Ruplal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 683 of 2012

¶3

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.372 of 1998(A) ]

¶4

¶5

Ruplal Mahto …. …. …. Appellant --Versus-The State of Jharkhand …. …. …. Respondent

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Munga Lal Kumar Chitra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

Instant appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.372 of 1998(A) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rupees Five Thousand. All the sentences to run concurrently.

¶10

F.I.R. was registered on written report of Mahavir Mahto against altogether seven accused persons being Nawadih P.S. Case No.0084/1997 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 of the IPC. As per the F.I.R., all the named accused persons including this appellant came to the agriculture field of the informant where he was ploughing his field and conjointly assaulted him. It is alleged that the informant and one Nakul Mahto were assaulted by the accused persons. Mangal Mahto assaulted with Lathi, Puran Mahto with Farsa, Sanichar Mahto with sword. Consequently, the informant sustained critically injury and became unconscious.

¶11

The police, on investigation, found the case true and charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. Charge was framed against all the accused persons including this appellant on 29.09.2000 and they were put on trial, evidence was recorded and after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was also recorded.

¶12

Thereafter, appellant absconded and his trial was separated on 25.01.2006 and supplementary case record being S.T. No.372/1998A was registered. The other accused persons who were put on trial, were acquitted of the charges by judgment passed in S.T. No.372/1998 on 24^th November, 2006.

¶13

The appellant-Ruplal Mahto was subsequently put on trial and convicted of offence.

¶14

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that Section 149 of the IPC will not apply in the present case as the other co-accused persons, who were alleged to have been the member of unlawful assembly, were acquitted of the charges. Consequently, the appellant cannot be solely convicted by invoking the principles of joint liability under Section 149 of the IPC. A plain reading of F.I.R. will go to show that there is no overt act attributed against this appellant. The allegation of assault with Lathi, sword and axe is against other coaccused persons, who were put on trial and acquitted of the charges. Strangely enough, the appellant has been convicted by invoking the sentence under Section 149 of the IPC.

¶16

Learned APP has defended the impugned Judgment.

¶17

Main point for determination is whether a sole accused can be held guilty of offence with Section 149 of the IPC, when other co-accused persons have been acquitted of the charges?

¶18

As per the prosecution case, only seven persons were initially put on trial along with this accused. Entire evidence was recorded and even the statement of the accused persons had been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It was at this stage that the appellant absconded, and his trial was separated. Other six were acquitted of the charges and appellant has been convicted under Section 148 and Sections 307/149 of the IPC. There is no direct evidence of assault against the appellant and criminal liability has been fastened on him for being member of unlawful assembly.

¶19

This Court is of the view that when all the other members of the unlawful assembly have been acquitted of the charges, the appellant cannot alone be held guilty for offence of group liability under Section 148 or Section 307/149. Since Section 149 imposes constructive criminal liability, therefore, it must be strictly construed. A Judgment of conviction can be returned against less than five persons, where it is possible to conclude that though five or more persons were unquestionably at the place of occurrence, but the identity of one or more was in doubt. It has been held in,

¶20

Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1953) 2 SCC 36

¶21

18. This is not to say that five persons must always be convicted before Section 149 can be applied. There are cases and cases. It is possible in some cases for Judges to conclude that though five were unquestionably there the identity of one or more is in doubt. In that case, a conviction of the rest with the aid of Section 149 would be good. But if that is the conclusion it behoves a court, particularly in a murder case where sentences of transportation in no less than four cases have been enhanced to death, to say so with unerring certainty. Men cannot be hanged on vacillating and vaguely uncertain conclusions.

¶22

¶23

Amar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1987) 1 SCC 679

¶24

9. In our opinion, there is much force in the contention. As the appellants were only four in number, there was no question of their forming an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC. It is not the prosecution case that apart from the said seven accused persons, there were other persons who were involved in the crime. Therefore, on the acquittal of three accused persons, the remaining four accused, that is, the appellants, cannot be convicted under Section 148 or Section 149 IPC for any offence, for, the first condition to be fulfilled in designating an assembly an “unlawful assembly” is that such assembly must be of five or more persons, as required under Section 141 IPC. In our opinion, the convictions of the appellants under Sections 148 and 149 IPC cannot be sustained.

¶25

Under the circumstance, for the reasons discussed above, Judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant is on bail, and accordingly sureties are discharged of the liabilities of their bail bond.

¶26

Criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶28

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 18^th January, 2024

¶29

NAFR/Anit

Ruplal Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruplal Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand

Prahlad Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Udit Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sona Devi Alias Piyaso Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Edupuganti Vara Prasad Choudhary Vs Bokaro Steel Limited And Ors.

Kamshwar Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.