Holding

The appellants are rightly convicted as members of an unlawful assembly with a common object, making them liable under Section 149 IPC for the murder and attempted murder.

Summary

The case involved six accused, including Iqbal and Virendra, who entered the complainant's house armed with rifles and fired upon the family, resulting in the death of Bhoop Singh and injuries to others. All were convicted under IPC Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 for forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing. On appeal, the appellants argued that there was no specific participation by them and that the prosecution had not proved a common object. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established a common object to kill the victims, that all six were armed and acted together, and that under Section 149 each member is vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object, irrespective of individual overt acts. Consequently, the convictions of the appellants were upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill, attracting liability under Section 149 IPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the requisite common object and participation of each accused for conviction under Sections 302/307 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

Unlawful assemblySection 149 IPCCommon objectVicarious liabilityMurderAttempt to murderConviction upheld

Judgment

.[2017] l S.C.R. 757

IQBAL & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 382 of2015)
FEBRUARY 07, 2017 B
[A.K. SIKRI AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 3021149, 3071149 - Unlawful
assembly - Common object - Six persons including two appellants
armed with weapons came to the place of occurrence - Inquired
about the whereabouts of two family members, the moment one
c
appeared on the scene, upon exhortation by 'G ', 'GL 'fired at 'BS'
" and others, and other members also fired from their rifles I
weapons - 'BS' succumbed to his injuries and two persons sustained
injuries - Conviction of accused ulss. 148, 3021149, 3071149 holding
that they formed unlawful assembly with the common object of killing D
the persons from the victim's side - Order upheld by the High
Court - On appeal, held: Inference drawn that there was a common
object to kill 'C ', 'BS' and even others - Occurrence and the presence
of six accused persons armed with deadly weapons, not doubted at
all and have been proved- to the hilt - Four convicted P..ersons have
E
. died, thus, the two appellants rightly convicted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is no error in the judgment of the courts
below convicting all the six accused persons, including the
appellants, for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 as well F
as 307/149 IPC. Insofar as 'V' is concerned, some of the witnesses
have specifically attributed role to him as well, i.e., he also fired
from the rifle which he was carrying. Presence of 'I' also stands
established. [Para 14] [766-B-C]
1.2 There is a clinching evidence produced by the
G
prosecution to show that all the six persons had come to the
place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons. The moment
they reached the house of the complainant ·and found the
complainant along with his father (PW-3) sleeping there, they
woke them up and first asked as to where 'C' was. When they
were told that 'C' was away to Delhi, they immediately asked for H
757
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R. ••a, IQBAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 759
•
A
•.
the whereabouts of 'DS'. The moment 'BS' appeared on the scene,
time of the incident as 23''/24'h March, 1985 at 00:30 hours, is to the A
'G' pointed out at him and told other memhcrs of the assemhly
fol lowing effect:
that he was the person who could be finished. Immediately upon
the exhortation of 'G' in the said manner, 'GL' fired at 'DS' and 2. In the night of23"/24" March; 1985, the complainant-Netrapal,
other members, who were carrying rifles, also started firing. along with his father SonpaJ, was sleeping in the verandah oftheir sitting
B Applying the ratio of Lalji's case, it could safely be inferred that room and his uncle Raghuvar Dayal, along with the brother of the
there was a common ohjcct to kill 'C', 'DS' and even others. complainant, viz., Bhoop Singh, was sle.eping inside of the said sitting B
Insofar as the occurrence and the presence of the six accused room. At about 12.30 a.m., six accused, viz.; Genda Lal, Gan pat, Sripal,
persons are concerned, it may not be doubted at all and have Virendra, Ram Shankar Lodha and Iqbal came there armed with rifles
been proved to the hilt. The four convicted persons have died and kalla. They woke up the complainant's father-Sonpal and asked
the two appellants arc rightly convicted for the said findings. [Para him where his son Chandrapal was. Hearing their voice, the complainant
c IS, 16, l 7J [766-D-HJ also woke up. His father told the accused persons that Chandarpal was
plying rickshaw somewhere in Delhi and was not in the house. On c
Lalji and Ors. v. St([/e of U.P. 1989 (1) SCC 437:1989
hearing tliis, Genda started hurling filthy abuses and asked complainant's
(1) SCR 130 - relied on.
father as to where Shoop Singh was, as they had come there to take
Ku/dip Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2011 (S) SCC revenge. At that very time, hearing the noise of these peopl~, Shoop
324 : 2011 (S) SCR 186 - referred to. Singh along with uncle Raghuvar Dayal woke up from sleep and came
D
Case Law Reference out of the room where they were sleeping. On seeing Bhoop Singh, D
Gan pat shouted loudly that he was Bhoop Singh and he could be killed
2011 (S) SCR 186 referred to Para 11 as he was their enemy. On hearing this, Genda fired with his rifle at
1989 (I) SCR 130 relied on Para 16 Shoop Singh which hit Bhoop Singh and as a result thereof he fell down
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. on the spot. Other persons also started firing from their rifles/weapons.
E 382of20!5. The complainant came out running and raised alarm. On hearing his·
shouts, many persons from th~ village gathered there who also started E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1240of1989. shouting. Seeing all these persons from the village having gathered there,
' the accused persons fled away from the scene. Bhoop Singh succumbed
Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv., lmtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma lmtiaz,
to the injuries suffered by him. In the FIR, it was further mentioned that
Adil Singh Doparai, Mis. Equity LexAssociates.,Advs. for the Appellants.
F the dead body ofBhoop Singh was lying on the spot.
Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Vikas Bansal, Udit Arora, Sandeepan F
Pathak, C. D. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 3. After recording of the aforesaid FIR, the police reached the
place of occurrence and inquest was done. The dead body was sent for
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
postmortem. Two persons who sustained injuries viz., Raghuvar Dayal
.TUDGMENT (PW-2) and Sonpal (PW-3), were sent for medical examination. The
I. The two appellants herein, along with four other persons, were police took up the investigation and, thereafter, on completion of the
G
charged for committing offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 as investigation, filed chargesheet under Section 173 ofthe Code of Criminal G
well as Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (!PC). First ;. Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the Court. Charges were framed under
Information Report in this beh~lf was registered with Police Station the aforesaid provisions.
Sahawar, District Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The case of the prosecution, as
can be discerned from the FIR which was lodged by complainant-Netrapal
I
(
4. The prosecution examined six witnesses wliich included three
eye-witnesses viz., PW-I, PW-2 and PW-3, out of which PW-2 and
H (PW-I) on 24'h March, 1985 at 9.05 a.m. and mentions the dat~ and PW-3 were injured eye-witnesses. Apart from these· three witnesses, H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R. ••a, IQBAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 759
•
A
•.
the whereabouts of 'DS'. The moment 'BS' appeared on the scene,
time of the incident as 23''/24'h March, 1985 at 00:30 hours, is to the A
'G' pointed out at him and told other memhcrs of the assemhly
fol lowing effect:
that he was the person who could be finished. Immediately upon
the exhortation of 'G' in the said manner, 'GL' fired at 'DS' and 2. In the night of23"/24" March; 1985, the complainant-Netrapal,
other members, who were carrying rifles, also started firing. along with his father SonpaJ, was sleeping in the verandah oftheir sitting
B Applying the ratio of Lalji's case, it could safely be inferred that room and his uncle Raghuvar Dayal, along with the brother of the
there was a common ohjcct to kill 'C', 'DS' and even others. complainant, viz., Bhoop Singh, was sle.eping inside of the said sitting B
Insofar as the occurrence and the presence of the six accused room. At about 12.30 a.m., six accused, viz.; Genda Lal, Gan pat, Sripal,
persons are concerned, it may not be doubted at all and have Virendra, Ram Shankar Lodha and Iqbal came there armed with rifles
been proved to the hilt. The four convicted persons have died and kalla. They woke up the complainant's father-Sonpal and asked
the two appellants arc rightly convicted for the said findings. [Para him where his son Chandrapal was. Hearing their voice, the complainant
c IS, 16, l 7J [766-D-HJ also woke up. His father told the accused persons that Chandarpal was
plying rickshaw somewhere in Delhi and was not in the house. On c
Lalji and Ors. v. St([/e of U.P. 1989 (1) SCC 437:1989
hearing tliis, Genda started hurling filthy abuses and asked complainant's
(1) SCR 130 - relied on.
father as to where Shoop Singh was, as they had come there to take
Ku/dip Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2011 (S) SCC revenge. At that very time, hearing the noise of these peopl~, Shoop
324 : 2011 (S) SCR 186 - referred to. Singh along with uncle Raghuvar Dayal woke up from sleep and came
D
Case Law Reference out of the room where they were sleeping. On seeing Bhoop Singh, D
Gan pat shouted loudly that he was Bhoop Singh and he could be killed
2011 (S) SCR 186 referred to Para 11 as he was their enemy. On hearing this, Genda fired with his rifle at
1989 (I) SCR 130 relied on Para 16 Shoop Singh which hit Bhoop Singh and as a result thereof he fell down
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. on the spot. Other persons also started firing from their rifles/weapons.
E 382of20!5. The complainant came out running and raised alarm. On hearing his·
shouts, many persons from th~ village gathered there who also started E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1240of1989. shouting. Seeing all these persons from the village having gathered there,
' the accused persons fled away from the scene. Bhoop Singh succumbed
Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv., lmtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Naghma lmtiaz,
to the injuries suffered by him. In the FIR, it was further mentioned that
Adil Singh Doparai, Mis. Equity LexAssociates.,Advs. for the Appellants.
F the dead body ofBhoop Singh was lying on the spot.
Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Vikas Bansal, Udit Arora, Sandeepan F
Pathak, C. D. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 3. After recording of the aforesaid FIR, the police reached the
place of occurrence and inquest was done. The dead body was sent for
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
postmortem. Two persons who sustained injuries viz., Raghuvar Dayal
.TUDGMENT (PW-2) and Sonpal (PW-3), were sent for medical examination. The
I. The two appellants herein, along with four other persons, were police took up the investigation and, thereafter, on completion of the
G
charged for committing offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 as investigation, filed chargesheet under Section 173 ofthe Code of Criminal G
well as Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (!PC). First ;. Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the Court. Charges were framed under
Information Report in this beh~lf was registered with Police Station the aforesaid provisions.
Sahawar, District Etah, Uttar Pradesh. The case of the prosecution, as
can be discerned from the FIR which was lodged by complainant-Netrapal
I
(
4. The prosecution examined six witnesses wliich included three
eye-witnesses viz., PW-I, PW-2 and PW-3, out of which PW-2 and
H (PW-I) on 24'h March, 1985 at 9.05 a.m. and mentions the dat~ and PW-3 were injured eye-witnesses. Apart from these· three witnesses, H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

A two'doctors viz., Doctor O.P. Vaidya (PW-4) who had conducted post-
mortem of Bhoop Singh and the Doctor who had medically examined
the injured persons, were also examined. The Investigating Officer S.I.
Dinesh Kumar Sisodiya, was examined as PW-5 and Head Constable
Bhanwar Singh as PW-6. Statements of the accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the material which had
B
surfaced during the trial and with which they were confronted.
5. As per the postmortem report of Bhoop Singh, he suffered
three ante mortem injuries. Two injuries were in the nature of abrasion
below left eye and on chin, on left side which were not serious in nature.
However, third injury which was the result of fire arm wound of entry
c 2X2 c.m. through and cavity deep on left side front ofneck middle part
along with margins lacerated and inverted became fatal and, in the opinion
of the Doctor (PW-4), death of Bhoop Singh was caused due to
hemorrhage and shock as a result of the said fire arm injury.
6. Insofar as Son pal is concerned, he suffered the following injuries:
D
"Gunshot wound of entry 1/4Cm. X i/4Cm. X depth not
probed in the interest of the patient on the ant. Surface of
right shoulder joint 8 1/2Cms. Below the clavicular joint.
No shot palpable. Burning, singing, blackening and tattooing
not present. Margins of the wound lacerated and inverted."
E
7. Injuries suffered by Raghuvar Dayal are described in the medical
report in the following manner:
"!.Two gunshot wound of entry l/4Cm. X l/4Cm. X depth
not probed in the interest of the patient, on the left side of
forehead 6 Cms. Apart from one another. Anterior wound
F
is 6 Cms. Above the middle of left eye brow and posterior
wound is 5 Cms. Above the left ear. Margins are inverted
and lacerated No shot palpable. Burning, singing, blackening
and tattooing not present. Advised X-ray of skull.
2. Abrasion I Cm. X I Cm. On the back ofleft fore-arm 7
G
l/2Cms. above the wrist joint."
8. It is clear from the nature of injuries suffered both by Sonpal
and Raghuvar Dayal that they were hit by gun shots, whereas the place
of wound insofar as Sonpal is concerned is on the surface of the right
shoulder below the clavicular joint. Raghuver Dayal was hit by two gun
H
lQBAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 761

shots on the left side of forehead 6 ems. apart from one another. He A
also was shot on the back of left forearm above the wrist joint though
the said shot caused abrasion of 1X1 c.m.
9. After analysing the evidence, the Trial Court came to the
conclusion that five of the accused persons were armed with rifles and
one with katta and they had formed an u~lawful assembly with the B
common object of killing the persons from the victim's side. It is with
this common object, they had fired on the family members of the
complainant which resulted in the death ofBhoop Singh and the natl•~?
of injuries of PW-2 and PW-3 shewed that there was an attempt to
commit their murder as well. On the basis of these findings,.all the six
accused were convicted for offences under Section 148, Section 302 c
read with Section 149 as well as Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
I 0. All the six convicted persons filed appeal in the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad being Criminal Appeal No. 1240of1989 which
has been dismissed by the High Court vi de its judgment dated 11.12.2014
- thereby confirming the conviction as well as sentences imposed by the D
Trial Court. Four of the convicted persons have died in the meantime.
It is for this reason that there are only two appellants in the present
appeal viz., Iqbal and Virendra.
11. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants, has contended that even as per the prosecution, it is no E
case that there was previous animosity between the family of the victim
on the one hand and Genda Lal and Ganpat on the other hand. Insofar
as the two appellants Virendra and I,qbal are concerned, they are roped
in only on the basis that they were friends ofGenda Lal and Ganpat. He
submitted that the prosecution· witnesses have themselves stated that F
they included these two appellants as friends ofGenda Lal and Ganpat. ·'
His statement was that there was no common object to kill the persons
of the other side and, only as friends, these two appellants had
accompanied Genda Lal, Ganpat and others. He further submitted that,
in such circumstances, it had to be seen that whether there was any
active role played by these two appellants. After reading through the G
depositions of the eye witnesses viz., PW-I, PW-2 and PW-3, he pointed
out that even these witnesses only mentioned about the preuence of
these two appellants. No doubt, two of them stated that Virendra had
also fired at them, but insofar as Iqbal is concerned, no specific role is
attributed to him by any of the witnesses. As far as the appellant-Virendra · H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 7] I S.C.R.

A is concerned, it was submitted that apart from stating that he had fired
from the rifle he was carrying, no witness has stated as to whether the
said rifle hit any of the persons. It was also submitted that the
Investigating Officer (PW-5), in his deposition, accepted the fact of
absence of pallets marks. Further no cartridges, etc., were found on the
spot and no evidence in this behalf was produced by the prosecution.
8
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was tried to be argued that
the benefit of doubt could be extended to the two appellants. Mr. Khurshid
referred to the judgment of this Court in 'Ku/dip Yadav and others v.
State of Bihar' (2011 (5) SCC 324], in support of his 5tatement that in
order to attract the provisions of' Section 149 !PC and to convict the
c accused of this provision, it was necessary for the Court to give specific
findings aboutthe said common object. It was also submitted that merely
because the appellants were part of the unlawful assembly would not
mean that they could be roped in for the offences under Sections 302 or
307 of the IPC unless it was shown as to what incriminating act was
done by them to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly.
D
For this, he specifically referred to para 39 of the judgment which reads
as under:
"39. It is not the intention of the legislature in enacting
Section 149 to render every member of unlawful assembly
liable to punishment for every offence committed by one or
E more of its members. In order to attract Section 149, it
must be shown that the incriminating act was done to ·
accomplish the common object ofunlawful assembly and it
must be within the knowledge of other members as one
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object..
F If the members of the assembly knew or__were aware of
the likelihood of a pai1icular offence being committed in
prosecution of the common object, they would be liable for
the same under Section 149 !PC." . · · ·
12. Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the State,
countered the aforesaid submissions by pointing out that in the instant
G
case, the testimonies of three eye-witnesses, two out of them injured
eye-witnesses, were unblemished which had stood the test of severe
cross examination and nothing could be pointed out which could dislodge
their credibility. He further submitted thattheirocular e-.:idence matched
with the medical evidence which was produced on the record which
H
IQBAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 763

would further strengthen the case of the prosecution. It was argued A
that the FIR, which was lodged without any delay, names all the six
persons who had formed unlawful assembly and had reached the place
of the victims, which included the two appellants herein as well. All the
eye-witnesses had mentioned about the presence of these two appellants
with arms. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove the occurrence
B
of the incident as well as the presence of all the accused including the
appellants there. He further pointed out that the manner in which the
accused, armed with weapons, had come and executed their plan clearlv
showed that there was common obj "ctive of the unlawful assembly to
eliminate the persons of the victim's family in which they partly succeeded
as one person died and the other two received severe injuries. It was c
pointed out that, in the High Court, the validity of the judgment of the
Trial Court was questioned only on two grounds, viz.: (a) there was
delay in lodging of the FIR; and (b) there was no sufficient light as the
incident happened at 12.30 in the night and, therefore, the witnesses
could not have identified or seen the accused persons.
D
13. He argued that both these aspects have been dealt with by
the Trial Court as well as by the High Court in detail and even the defence
could not argue about the justification of the conClusion arrived at in this
behalf. He submitted that the common objective was clearly proved
from the aforesaid circumstances. He referred to the decision in the
case of' Lalji and others v. State of U.P ' [ 1989 (I) SCC 43 7] wherein E
the principles which are to be kept in mind while applying the provisions
of Section 149 IPC are stated as follows:
"8. Section 149 !PC 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 F
of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person, who at the time of
committing of that offence is a member of the same
assembly, is guilty of that offence. As has been defined in
Section 141 !PC, an assembly of five or more persons is
G
designated an 'Unlawful Assembly', ifthe common object
of the persons composing that assembly is to do any act or
acts stated in clauses 'First', 'Second', 'Third', 'Fourth',
and 'Fifth' of that section. An assembly, as the explanation
to the section says, which was not unlawful when it
H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

~ A. assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful
assembly. Whoever being aware of facts which render
any assembly an unlawful assemb;l-y.ffJteutiQDally joins that
assembly, or continues in it, is saiato be a member of an
unlawful assembly. Thus, whenever so many as five or
more persons meet together to support each other, even
B
against opposition, in carrying out the common object which
is likely to involve violence or to produce in the minds of
rational and firm men any reasonable apprehension of
violence, then even though they ultimately depart without
doing anything whatever towards carrying out their common
c object, the mere fact of their having thus met will constitute .
an offence. Of course, the alarm must not be merely such
as would frighten any foolish or timid person, but must be
such as would alarm persons of reasonable firmness and
-courage. The two essentials of the section are the
commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful .
D
assembly and that such offence must have been committed
in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or
must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be
likely to be committed. Not every person is necessarily
guilty but only those who share in the common object. The
E common object of the assembly must be one of the five
objects mentioned in Section 141 IPC. Common object of
the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of
the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the
assembly at or before scene of occurrence. It is an
inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances
F
of each case.
9. Section 149 makes every member of an unlawful
assembly at the time of committing of the offence guilty of
that offence. Thus this section created a specific and distinct
offence. In other words, it created a constructive or vicarious
G liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the
.unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by
any other member of that assembly. However, the vicarious
liability of the members of the unlawful assembly extends
only to the acts done in pursuance of the common objecis
H of the unlawful assembly, or to such offences as the
IQBAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 765

members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be A
. committed in prosecution of that object. Once the case of a
person falls within the ingredients of the section the question
that he did nothing with his own hands would be immaterial.
He cannot put forward the defence that he did not with his
own hand commit the offence committed in prosecution of
B
the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed
in prosecution of that object. Everyone must be taken to
have intended the probable and natural results of the
combination of the acts in which he joined. It is not
necessary that all the persons fonning an unlawful assembly c
must do some overt act. When the accused persons
assembled together, armed with lath is, and were parties to
the assaRlt on the complainant party, the prosecution is not
obliged to prove which specific overt act was done by which
of the accused. This section makes a member of t!1e
D
unlawful assembly responsible as a principal for the acts of
each, and all, merely because he is a member of an unlawful
assembly. 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 vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. It E
must be noted that the basis of the constructive guilt under
Section 149 is mere membership of the unlawful assembly,
with the requisite common object br knowledge.
11. In the instant case after having held that the appellants
formed_~_n· unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons F
with the common object to resortin_g to violence (as
described in the charge) it was not open to the High Court
to acquit some of the members on the ground that they
themselves did not perform any violent act, or that there
was no corroboration of their participation. In other words,
having held that they formed an unlawful assembly and G
committed an offence punishable with the aid of Section
149 IPC, the High Court erred in examining which of the
members only did aCti\'ely participate and in acquitting those
· who, according to the court, did not s·o participate. Doi'.lg
so wou Id amount to forgetting the very nature and essence H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

A of the offence created by Section 149 lPC. The court in
undeserving cases cannot afford to be charitable .in the
· administration ofcriminaljustice which is so vital for peace
and order in the society."
14. After going though the records and considering the arguments
of the counsel on either side, we are of the opinion that there is.no error
in the judgment of the Courts below convicting all the six accused persons,
·including the appellants, for the aforesaid offences. In the first instance;
it may be mentioned that insofar as Virendra is concerned, some of the
witnesses have specifically attributed role to him as well, i.e., he also
fired from the rifle which he was carrying. Presence oflqbal also stands
e established. ··
15. In the instant case, where the moot question is as to whether
there was common objective, if that is proved, then, in any case, the
separate roles played by all the accused persons need not be examined
as all the members ofunlawful assembly would be vicariously liable for
D the acts done by th~ said assembly. There is a clinching evidence
produced by the prosecution to show that all the six persons had come to
·the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons. The moment they
reached theiiouse of the complainant and found the complainant along
with his.father Sonpal (PW-3) sleeping_there·, tl\ey woke them up and
E first asked as to where Chandrapal was. When they were told that
Chandr.apal was away to Delhi, they immediately asked for the
whereabouts of Bhoop Singh. The moment Bhoop Singh appeared on
, the· scene, Ganpat pointed out at him and told other members·of the
assembly that he was the person who could be finished. Immediately
upon the exhortation ofGanpat in the aforesaid manner, Genda Lal fired
F at Bhoc," '.>ingh and other members, who were carrying rifles, also started
firing .
. 16. Applying the ratio of Lalji's case as stated above, it. could
safely. be inferred-that there was a common object to kill Chandrapal,
Bhoop Singh·and even others. As already mentioned above, insofar as
G · the occurrence and the presence of the six accused persons are
· co?cerned, it may not be doubted at all and have been proved to the hilt.
17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the two appellants are
rightly convicted for the aforesaid findings. Finding no merit in this appeal,
the same stands dismissed.
H Nidhi Jain Appeal disn1issed.