CHANAKYA DHIBAR (DEAD)versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

    .~
                             CHANAKY A DHIBAR (DEAD)                                 A
                                             V.

                         STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

                                  DECEMBER 19, 2003

                  [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]
                                                                                     B

               Penal Code, 1860 :

                Sections 148, 304 Part I r/w Section 149-Death caused-Assault by
          five accused-Witnessed by two eye-witnesses-One of them independent        c
           witness-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court disbelieving
           the witnesses-On appeal, held: Acquittal not justified-High Court's
          judgment was based on surmises and conjectures and not on analysis of
          evidence-Conclusions of High Court is contrary to records of the case.

               Section 149-Common object-Scope of-Discussed-Section 141.
                                                                                     D

                'Cornman object' and 'Common intention '-Distinction between.

               Criminal Trial :
                                                                                     E
               Chance witness-Reliability on-Held: Evidence of such witness
          cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion-Jn a murder trial
          evidence of an independent witness cannot be discarded describing it as
          chance witness.

               Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Special Leave Petition-
                                                                                     F
          Scope ofinterference with order of acquittal-Held : Generally such order
          should not be interfered with-However, interference permissible when the
          order is unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been
          unjustifiably eliminated.
                                                                                     G
               Five respondents-accused were charged for having assaulted a
          person severely and causing his death. PW-3 who was accompanying
          the deceased saw the assault and fearing attack on him ran away and
.    ,,   informed the family members of the deceased i.e. his brother and his
          wife (PW-2) who took the deceased to the hospital. The incident was H
                                            1181
    1182              SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A also seen by a rickshaw puller (PW-5). In the FIR names of the five
    respondents-accused were indicated. Trial Court held the accused
    guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read
    with Section 149 IPC.

       On appeal, High Court held that the two eyewitnesses were not
B truthful witnesses; that PW-3 could not have seen the occurrence as
  he had fled away from the spot; that his conduct of not lodging the
  information and going to the house of the deceased and his not
  accompanying the deceased to the hospital raises suspicion; that
  suspicion for the occurrence could be raised against PW-3 who was
C companion of the deceased and was partner in his business; that PW-
  5 could not have seen the occ•irrence being far away from the place;
  that he also could not be relied on as his antecedents were not clear;
  that he appeared to be tutored witness; and that there could have been
  temple goers on the road who would have seen the occurrence. Hence
D accused were acquitted.
          In appeal to this Court, respondent-accused contended that
    evidence of PWs 3 and 5 show that they could not have seen the
    occurrence as claimed; that evidence of PWS could not have been acted
    upon as he was only a chance witness; that FIR did not have detail
E   as to respective roles played by the accused persons; evidence is not
    sufficient to bring in application of Section 149 IPC; and that in an
    appeal against acquittal jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Consti-
    tution of India cannot be exercised.

F          Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD : 1.1. High Court was wrong in holding the accused persons
  to be not guilty. High Court's judgment is based more on surmises and
  conjectures than making an attempt to analyse the evidence. Some of
  the conclusions are contrary to record. All the accused persons were
G armed. Their conduct before, during and after the occurrence clearly
  brings about the object. The assembly was patently unlawful. It is
  inconceivable that persons armed would surround the persons without
  any criminal object in mind. Mere fact that only one of them used the
  weapon does not really rule out application of Section 149 IPC. It cannot
H be said that since definite roles have not been ascribed to the accused
        CHANAKY A DHIBAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                     1183

and, Section 149 is not applicable. In view of definition of "default" as A
given in Section 351 IPC, it cannot be said that if five persons were really
assaulting, the result would not have been only one injury. The trial
Court had rightly and in proper legal perspective convicted the accused-
respondents under Section 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149
IPC. [1188-H; 1189-A; 1196-A-C]                                              B
    Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202; Lalji v. State
o/UP., [1989] 1SCC437 and State of UP. v. Dan Singh and Ors., (1997)
3 sec 747, referred to.

      1.2. High Court has over-looked the categorical evidence of C
PW-3, who during cross-examination has stated that after seeing the
assault he had run away. High Court has also raised suspicion over
PW-3's conduct in not lodging the information first and going to the
house of the deceased and not his own house which was nearer. This
is of no consequence. The deceased was closely related to him and, D
therefore, as explained in evidence he thought it proper to inform the
relatives of deceased first so that medical treatment could be immediately
provided. The most vulnerable conclusion of the High Court relates to
its view regarding PW-3 because he claimed to have accompanied the
deceased. Such a conclusion borders on absurdity and is without any
foundation for such a conclusion. The High Court should not have E
recorded such a finding. The High Court also doubted PW-3's evidence
on the ground that he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.
The witnesses PWs-2 and 3 have categorically stated that PW-2 had
seen the deceased in an injured condition and therefore PW-3 accom-
panied her to the deceased's house when the deceased was shifted to F
the hospital. [1190-B-FJ

     1.3. There was no delay in lodging FIR. There was no evidence
to show that the temple goers were passing on the roads. The
hypothetical conclusion of the High Court that people must be passing, G
is without any foundation. [1190-C-D]

     1.4. The evidence of PW-5 has been disbelieved on the ground that
he could not have possibly seen the occurrence being far away from
the road where he claimed to be sitting. The evidence on record shows
that the distance is even less than 10 yards. The evidence of PW-5 has H
    1184               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
                                                                                 -,
A also been discarded because of his antecedents. When the evidence has               "
    been analysed carefully by the trial Court to find that he is a truthful
    witness, his antecedents should not have weighed with the High Court
    to completely discard his evidence. There is also no material to support
    the conclusion of the High Court that he was a tutored witness.
    PW-5 was an independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to
B   the witness that he had any animosity towards any of the accused. In
    a murder trial by describing the independent witnesses as 'chance
    witnesses', it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious
    and their presence at the scene doubtful. If murder is committed in a
    street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be
c   brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are
    mere "chance witnesses". The expression "chance witnesses" is borrowed
    from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and
    everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in
    another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country
D   where people are less formal and more casual.
                               (1189-G-H; 1190-D-E; 1194-G-H; 1195-A-B]

         2.1. The emphasis in Section 149 IPC is on the common object an~
    not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly
    cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and
E   he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those
    set out in Section 141 IPC. Where common object of an unlawful
    assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with
    the help of Section 149. (1190-H; 1191-A)

           2.2. The word 'object' means the purpose or design and, in order
F to make it 'common', it must be shared by all. A common object may
    be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that
    is _by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a
    few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and
    adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be
G   modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression 'in
    prosecution of common object' as appearing in Section 149 have to be
    strictly construed as equivalent to 'in order to attain the common
    object'. It must be immediately connected with the common object by
    virtue of the nature of the object. (1191-C-F)
                                                                                 "
H          2.3. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it
        CHANAKY A DHIBAR v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL                  1185

does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before A
the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their
number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that
object. The 'common object' ofan assembly is to be ascertained from the
acts and language of the members com posing it, and from a consideration
of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course B
of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common
object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is
essentially a question of fact to be determined. It is not necessary under
law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common
object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. The time C
of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its
commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may
subsequently become unlawful. (1191-H; 1192-A-D]

      2.4. Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. In order that the
offence may fall within the first part, the offence must be connected D
immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of
which the accused was member. Even if the offence committed is not
in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet
fall under Section 141, if it can be held that the offence was such as
the members knew was likely to be committed and this is what is E
required in the second part of the Section. The distinction between the
two parts of Section 149 cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case
it would be an issue to be determined, whether the offence committed
falls within the first part or it was an offence such as the members of
the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the F
common object and falls within the second part. However, there may
be cases which would be within first, offences committed in prosecution
of the common object, but would be generally, if not always with the
second, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely committed
in the prosecution of the common object. (1193-C-E; 1192-D-F]
                                                                          G
     Chikkarange Gowda and Others v. State of Mysore, AIR (1956) SC
731, referred to.

     3.1. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the H
    1186               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption
    of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The
    golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice
    in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence
    adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
B   other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
    should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to
    ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice
    which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
    conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is
C   ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the
    evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
    ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any
    offence or not. The principle to be followed by appellate Court
    considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere
    only when there are compelling the substantial reasons for doing so.
D   If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and
    convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process,
    it is a compelling reason for interference. (1195-C-G)

           Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
E (1973) SC 2622; Ramesh Babula! Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4
    Supreme 167; Jaswant Singh v. State ofHaryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320;
    Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State
    of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of Punjab v.
    Pohla Singh and Anr., (2003) 7 Supreme 17 and Suchand Pal v. Phani
F   Pal and Anr., JT (2003) 9 SC 17, relied on.

        Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 2
    Supreme 567, referred to.

           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
G 728 of 1997.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 19 .3 .97 of the Calcutta High
    Court in Cr!. A. No. 406 of 1988.

H          Ranjit Kumar, Aseem Mehrotra for A.P. Medh for the Appellant.
       CHANAKYA DHIBAR v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL [PASAYAT, J.]        1187

    U.R. Lalit, Ranjan Mukherjee, Satish Vig, Siddharth Dave, Ms. A
Radha Rangaswamy and Tara Chandra Sharma for the Respondents.

     The judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : The informant has filed this appeal
questioning judgment of acquittal rendered by a learned Single Judge of B
the Calcutta High Court acquitting five respondents (hereinafter referred
to as the 'accused' by their respective names). Since he has died during
the pendency of the appeal, an application for substitution by his legal
representatives has been filed which is allowed.

       The trial Court found the respondents guilty of offences punishable C
 under Sections 148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
 Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Law was set in motion by PW-1
 (Chanakya) on the accusation that Jaba Dhibar (hereinafter referred to as
 the 'deceased') was assaulted severely by five respondents on the date of
 occurrence i.e. on 16.9.1985 at about 9.45 p.m. Naran Dhibar (PW-3) who D
 was accompanying him saw the assault by accused Mana Bhattacharjee and
 fearing assaults on him ran away and informed the family members of the
 deceased. On hearing about the assaults, the informant, his elder brother
 Naran and Sandhya, wife of the deceased (PW-2) went to the spot. When
 they arrived there finding the deceased with bleeding injuries, took him to E
 the Bankura hospital on police jeep. Apart from PW-3, a rickshaw puller
 Pradip Das (PW-5) was examined to show that he has seen the deCefl.Sed
 being surrounded by accused persons and assaulted him. The first
 information report was lodged at about l 0.25 p.m. in which the names of
 the five respondents were indicated. Sub-Inspector (PW-9) attached to the F
 Bankura Police Station took up investigation. The doctor (PW-4) who
 examined the deceased found a sharp cut injury on top of the deceased's
 skull. He was attended to by other doctor (PW-15). He continued to be
 under treatment till 13. l 0.1985 when he was shifted to S.S.K.M. hospital,
 Calcutta and ultimately he breathed his last on 8.11.1985. Post mortem was
 conducted by PW-18 who opined that the death was due to septicemia. The G
 injury was, according to him, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
 to cause death and that it was homicidal. After completion of investigation,
·charge sheet was placed for commission of offence punishable under
 Sections 147, 148, 304 read with Section 149 IPC. Charges were framed
 under Sections ·148 and 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. Accused H
    1188               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A persons pleaded innocence. According to tl.e defence plea as evident from
    the cross examination of prosecution witnesses and statement of the
    accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') the accused persons were falsely
    implicated out of grudge. People of Pathakpara locality made attempts to
B   evict the prostitutes from the locality in between Pathakpara and Keotpara,
    which was strongly opposed by Chanakya (PW-1 ).

         After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that
    accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Sections 148 and
C   304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC. Each of the accused was sentenced
    to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of
    Rs.1,000 with de.fault stipulation so far as offence punishable under Section
    304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and two years for the offence
    punishable under Section 148 IPC.

D         The convicted accused persons filed appeal before the Calcutta High
    Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the two
    witnesses on whose evidence prosecution heavily relied on were not
    truthful witnesses. It was not explained as to how the accused persons
    would know the movements of the deceased, when both PWs l and 3
E   accepted their presence nearby the place of occurrence was not known to
    anybody. PW-5 could not have also seen the occurrence which was far
    away from the road. PW-3 could not also have seen the occurrence as he
    accepted to have run away after the accused persons stabbed the deceased.
    The inmates of the nearby houses were not examined as prosecution
F   witnesses. There must have been temple goers passing along the road. As
    PW-5 was earlier prosecuted by the police, his antecedents were not very
    clean and he appeared to be a tutored witness. There is no motive attributed
    as to why the accused persons would attack the deceased. On the other
    hand, the needle of suspicion could be raised against NaraQ Dhibar (PW-
    3) who was the companion of the deceased and was his partner in the fish
G   business. Though the death was due to the injury sustained, yet it has no!
    been proved that the vital injury was caused by the accused persons.
    Accordingly, the conviction made and sentences· imposed were set aside.

        In support of the appeal, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
H   submitted that the High Court's judgment is based more on surmises and
               CHANAKYA DHIBAR v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL [PASAYAT, J.]         1189

        conjectures, than analysing the evidence on record. Even the evidence has A
        not been properly appreciated. Since the judgment of the High Court is
        bereft of acceptable reasoning, the same is liable to be set aside and the
        judgment of the trial Court should be restored.

              In response, Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the accused B
        submitted that the view taken by the High Court is a possible view. It is
        not that the High Court has not analysed the evidence. It has arrived at the
        right conclusions. The evidence of PWs 3 and 5 clearly show that they
        could not have seen the occurrence as claimed. PW-3 has accepted that he
        had run away after the accused had stopped the deceased. The first
        information report does not detail as to the respective roles played by the C
        accused persons. In any event, the evidence is not sufficient to bring in
        application of Section 149 IPC. There is no sound reasoning indicated to
        hold that there was any unlawful assembly which is a sine qua non for the
        application of Section 149. The identification as claimed by PWs 3 and 5
        is improbabilised by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. He clearly D
        stated that he had not mentioned anything about the street light or the torch
        light claimed to have been carried by PW-3 in the case diary. PW-S's
        presence at the spot of occurrence has also not been explained and he at
        the most is a chance witness and, therefore, his evidence could not have
        been acted upon.                                                              E
              In essence, it was submitted that in an appeal against acquittal the
        jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short
        the 'Constitution') should not be exercised. Learned counsel for the State
        of West Bengal supported the stand taken by the informant-appellant.
                                                                                      F
             A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that the same is
        based more on surmises and conjectures than making an attempt to analyse
        the evidence. Some of the conclusions as rightly submitted by learned
        counsel for the appellant are contrary to record. The evidence of PW-5 has
        been disbelieved on the ground that he could not have possibly seen the G
        occurrence being far away from the road where he claimed to be sitting.
        The evidence on record shows that the distance is even less than l 0 yards.
        Another factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court is the
    ;
I       statement of PW-3 that he had taken to his heels after the accused persons
        stopped the deceased. The High Court has clearly over-looked the categori- H
    1190               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A cal evidence of PW-3, who during cross examination has stated that after
  seeing the assault he had run away. The statement to the effect that he ran
  away after the accused persons stopped the deceased is to be read along
  with other parts of the evidence and not in an isolated way. The statement
  made in the cross examination to the effect that he ran away after seeing
B the assaults is significant. The High Court has also raised suspicion over
  PW-3's conduct in not lodging the information first and going to the house
  of the deceased and not his own house which was nearer. This according
  to us is really of no consequence. The deceased was closely related to him
  and, therefore, as explained in evidence he thought it proper to inform the
  relatives of deceased first so that medical treatment could be immediately
C provided. There was also no delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took
  place at about 9.45 p.m. and the information with the police was lodged
  at about l 0.15 p.m. There was no evidence to show that the temple goers
  were passing on the roads. The hypothetical conclusion of the High Court
  that people must be passing is without any foundation. The evidence of
D PW-5 has been discarded because of his antecedents. When the evidence
  has been analysed carefully by the trial Court to find that he is a truthful
  witness, his antecedents should not have weighed with the High Court to
  completely discard his evidence. There is also no material to support the
  conclusion of the High Court that he was a tutored witness. The most
E vulnerable conclusion of the High Court relates to its view regarding PW-
  3 because he claimed to have accompanied the deceased. Such a conclusion
  to say the least borders on absurdity and is without any foundation for such
  a conclusion. The High Court should not have recorded such a finding.
  The High Court also doubted PW-3's evidence on the ground that he did
  not accompany the deceased to the hospital. The witnesses PW-2 and PW-
F 3 have categorically stated that PW-2 had seen the deceased in an injured
   condition and therefore PW-3 accompanied her to the deceased's house
   when the deceased was shifted to the hospital.

           In view of the aforesaid position, clearly the High Court was wrong
G in holding the accused persons to be not guilty.
         However, one plea which was urged with some amount of vehemence
    was the applicability of Section 149 IPC.

         The emphasis in Section 149 IPC is on the common object and not         \

H   on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot
       CHANAKYA DHIBAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [PASAYAT, J.]      1191

render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was A
actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in
Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved,
the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The
crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or
more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the B
common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as
a general proposi_tion of law that unless an overt act is proved against a
person, who is alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be
said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that
he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely C
to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141.
The word 'object' means the purpose or design and, in order to make it
'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be
common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they
should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed D
by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means
necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the
assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed,
it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or
abandoned at any stage. The expression 'in prosecution of common object' E
as appearing in Section 149 have to be strictly construed as equivalent to
 'in order to attain the common object'. It must be immediately connected
 with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must
 be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular
stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful assembly may have
 community of object up to certain point beyond which they may differ in F
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, IPC may be different on G
different members of the same assembly.

      'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does
not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the
attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number H
    1192                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The
    'common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and
    language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the
    surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct
    adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the
B   unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a
    question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the
    assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the
    members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under
    law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common
C   object, the sa.ne must be translated into action or be successful. Under the
    Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it
    was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary
    that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly
    an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming
    an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commence-
D   mentor even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become
    unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at
    the spot co instanti.

           Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first part of the section
E means that the offence to be committed in prosecution of the common
    object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the
    common object. In order that the offence may fall within the first part,
    the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the
    unlawful assembly of which the accused was member. Even ifthe offence
    committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the
F   assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141, ifit can be held that the offence
    was such as the members knew was likely to be committed and this is what
    is required in the second part of the section. The purpose for which the
    members of the assembly set out or desired to achieve is the object. If
    the object desired by all the members is the same, the knowledge that is
G   the object which is being pursued is shared by all the members and they
    are in general agreement as to how it is to be achieved and that is now
    the common object of the assembly. An object is entertained in the human
    mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no direct ~vidence can be
    available and, like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act
H   which the person commits and the result therefrom. ·Though no hard and
       CHANAKYA DHIBAR v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL [PASA YAT, J.]       1193

fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common A
object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature
of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene
of incident. The word 'knew' used in the second branch of the section
implies something more than a possibility and it cannot be made to bear
the sense of 'might have been known'. Positive knowledge is necessary. B
When an offence is committed in prosecution of -the common object, it
would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful
assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object. That, however, does not make the converse proposition true; there
may be cases which would come within the second part but not within the
first part. The distinction between the two parts of Section 149 cannot be C
ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined,
whether the offence committed falls within the first part or it was an offence
such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part.
However, there may be cases which would be within first offences D
committed in prosecution of the common object, but would be generally,
if not always, with the second, namely, offences which the parties knew
to be likely committed in the prosecution of the common vbject. [See
Chikkarange Gowda and Others v. State of Mysore, AIR ( 1956) SC 731.]
                                                                            E
     The other plea that definite roles have not been ascribed to the
accused and, therefore, Section 149 is not applicable, is untenable. A
4-Judge Bench of this Court in Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR
(1965) SC 202 observed as follows:

               "Then it is urged that the evidence given by the witnesses F
         conforms to the same uniform pattern and since no specific part
         is assigned to all the assailants, that evidence should not have been
         accepted. This criticism again is not well founded. Where a crowd
         of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds
         to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common G
         object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for
         witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of
        the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with
        .weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary
         that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the H
    1194              SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by
            different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that
            the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In such
            a case, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other
            weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were
            not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be
B
            rejected. Appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is no
            doubt a difficult task; but criminal courts have to do their best in
            dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence
            carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not."

c       To similar effect is the observation in Lalji v. State of U.P., [1989]
    l SCC 437. It was observed that:

                  "Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered
            from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the
D           behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence.
            It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances
            of each case."

            In State ofU.P. v. Dan Singh and Ors., [1997) 3 SCC 747 it was
            observed that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove
E
            which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what
            act. Reference was made to Lalji's case (supra) where it was
            observed that "while overt act and active participation may
            indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime,
            the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicari-
F           ously criminal liability under Section 149".

            Coming to the plea of the accused that PW-5 was 'chance witness'
            who has not explained how he happened to be at the alleged place
            of occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness was an
G           independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to the
                                                                                   ·-
            witness that he had any animosity towards any of the accused. In
            a murdet trial by describing the independent witnesses as 'chance
            witnesses' it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is
            suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are
            not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their
H
       CHANAKYA DHIBAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [PASAYAT J.]           1195

        presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates A
        of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a
        street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be
        brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they
        are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance vvitness' is
        borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered B
        his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence
        elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an
        expression in a country where people are less for.ma! and more
        casual.

      There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence C
upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs
thr~mgh the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
vi~ws are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to D
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration
of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible
evidence is ignored, a dufy is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appraciate E
the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence
or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002)
2 Supreme 567. The principle to be followed by appellate Court consid-
ering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when F
there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned
judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials
have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason
for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR (1973) SC 2622,
Ramesh Babula! Doshi v. State ofGujarat, (1996) 4 Supreme 167,Jaswant G
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320, Raj Kishore Jha v. State
ofBihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152, State ofPunjab v. Karnail Singh,
(2003) 5 Supreme 508 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr., (2003)
7 Supreme 17 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and Anr., JT (2003) 9 SC
11.                                                                          H
    1196               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         All the accused persons were armed. Their conduct before, during and
    after the occurrence clearly brings about the object. The assembly was
    patently unlawful. It is inconceivable that persons armed would surround
    the persons without any criminal object in mind. Mere fact that only one
    of them used the weapon does not really rule out application of Section
B   149 IPC. Learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that contrary
    to the evidence of PWs 3 and 5 there was only one injury found by the
    doctor. PWs 3 and 5 have stated about assaults and if five persons were
    really assaulting the result would not have been only one injury. The
    definition of "assault" as given in Section 351 IPC makes the plea
C   unacceptable. The trial Court had rightly and in proper legal perspective
    convicted the accused-respondents under Section 148 and 304 Part I read
    with Section 149 IPC. The High Court's judgment suffers from serious
    infirmities making it indefensible and is therefare, set aside. The judgment
    of the trial Court recording conviction and imposing sentences is restored.
    The appeal is allowed.
D
    K.K.T.                                                    Appeal allowed.




                                                                                   I'
                                                                                   I