MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                            [2016) 8 S.C.R. 594



A                   MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS.
                                     v.
          STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                      (Criminal Appeal Nos. 231-233 of2009)
B                          DECEMBER 09, 2016
       [PINAi(! CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.)
        Penal Code, 1860: ss.147, 148, 324, 307, 302 - Gruesome
  attack - Murder of 8 family members - 21 accused - Conviction
C and sentence of life imprisonment for each count and sentence of
  imprisonment for 10 years ordered to run consecutively - On appeal,
  held: Prosecution case was well established by the testimonies of
  eye-witnesses and duly corroborated wherein factum of unlawful
  assembly was proved -Accused-appellants caused the death of eight
  persons in a barbaric and brutal manner wherein merciless killing
D of a child of only 1 Yi years was also involved - Therefore, conviction
  is upheld - However, life sentences so awarded cannot be directed
  to run consecutively.
          Disposing of the appeals, the Court
          HELD: 1. In the present case, motive is seen in the
E collective testimony of eye-witnesses (PW1-PW3) when accused
  came out from the bushes shouting "kill them", "lrnck them",
  ''fire tllem", as also mentioned in the complaint. A child was also
  mercilessly attacked in the incident with a spear on his chest.
  Accused no.7 snatched away the child from her mother and killed
F her too with velstick. Even PW4 (though not an eye-witness of
  whole occurrence) also hid in the nearby bushes to save his life.
  In his statement, he also corroborated the factum of hearing
  shooting and also after identifying accused No.7, stated that "his
  wife was also killed by accused No.7 ••• ".Prosecution case was
  well established by the testimonies of eye-witnesses PW1-PW3
G and corroborated by PW4, wherein factum of unlawful assembly
  was proved. [Paras 13, 14) [601-E-G; 602-H; 603-A]
          2. The accused-appellants did cause the death of eight
    persons in a barbaric and brutal manner wherein merciless killing
    of a child of only 1Y, years is also involved. Therefore, the accused
H
                                    594
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY                   595
            INSPECTOR OF POLICE

in the present case do not deserve any sympathy. The judgment A
passed by the High Court as far as awarding of sentences is
concerned is upheld. However, the sentences shall run in
conformity with the observations made by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in its judgment dat~d 19.07.2016 passed in these
appeals. [Paras 20, 21] [605-E-G]
                                                                B
      Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1971) 3 SCC 471; Willie
       (William) Stanley v. State of MP. AIR 1956 SC 116 :
       1955 SCR 1140; Chhitarmal" State of Rajasthan 2003
      (1) SCR 49 : (2003) 2 SCC 266; Umesh Singh & Anr.
      v. State of Bihar (2000) 6 SCC 89; Mnhan Singh v. ·
       State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174 :- 1962 Supp (3)        c
       SCR 848; Mahadeo Singh v. State of Bihar (1970) 3
       SCC 46; Shambhunath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR
       1960 SC 725; Mizaji v. State of UP AIR 1959 SC
       572 : 1959 Suppl. SCR 940 - relied on.
                      Case Law Reference                          D

(1971) 3 sec 471                relied on          Para 10
1955 SCR 1140                   relied on          Para 11   '

2003 (1) SCR 49                 relied on          Para 12
                                                                  E
(2000) 6 sec 89                 relied on          Para 14
1962 Supp (3) SCR 848           relied on          Para 15
(1970) 3 sec 46                 relied on          Para 16
AIR 1960 SC 725                 relied on          Para 18
                                                                  F
1959 Suppl. SCR 940             relied on          Para 19
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 231-233 of2009.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2007 of the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 323, 328 and 451 of G
2006.
                                WITH
      Crl. A. Nos. 225, 226-227, 895 of2009
      Crl. A. No. 429 of2015.                                     H
596             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A             A. T. M. Ranga Ramanujam, Sr. Adv., K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana,
        Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla, E. V. S. Venugopal, Ms.
      · Anu Gupta, G. Sivabalamurugan, M. Theepa, Ms. Vandana, L. K. Pandey,
        Vinodh Kanna B. S. Prabhu Rama Subramanian, Advs. for the Appellants.
             M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Advs. for the Respondent.
B            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. Brief facts giving rise to
      the initiation of criminal proceedings in these cases are as follows: A
      gruesome incident occurred in Taluk Ramanathapuram, District Tamil
      Nadu in whiclt the appellants, the deceased and few witnesses were
c     related to each other. As per prosecution case, on 10.02.1994, accused
      persons assembled unlawfully with deadly weapons and with the common
      intention to commit murder, they chased the family members of deceased
      Rajendran when they got down from the bus in the village near
      Karisalkulam Branch Road. They were coming back to their village
D     after attending the cremation ofRajendran, who died in another case on
      09 .02.1994, and the appel !ants herein and few others were accused in
      that case. The accused persons, in a gruesome attack on the family
      members, murdered 8 persons, including one who succumbed to the
      injuries later in the Hospital. PW- I immediately after the occurrence
      proceeded to Kovilankulam Police Station and lodged the complaint,
E     Ex.Pl. PW-22 who was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kovilankulam
      Police Station registered the case as Crime No.6of1994 under Sections
      147, 148, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and under
      Section 25( I) of Indian Arms Act. After completing the investigation,
      PW-23 filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections
F     147, 148, 324, 307, 506(ii), 307 & 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
         2. Originally there were 21 accused persons. Accused Chandran
  died during the investigation. Hence, 20 accused persons (Al to A20)
  were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
  Ramanathapuram. However, accused No. 7 - Murugan@ Kodarai died
G during the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
  Ramanathapuram, convicted A I to A6 and AS to A20 each and sentenced
  them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various offences. A 18 -
  Malaiyandi died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Cou1i.
  The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the occurrence to be a
  brutal and gruesome attack by the accused persons forming unlawful
H
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 597
 INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

assembly and causing death of eight persons, including a I Yi years child,    A
with a common objective of eliminating everyone in the deceased's family.
       3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge delivered his judgment on
30.05.2006, holding all the accused persons guilty and sentenced them
as follows:
       ACCUSED               CONVICTION                SENTENCE               B

A-I to A-6& AS to A20     U/s 148 !PC             RI for one year
A-I to A-6, A-9 to Al3,   U/s 302 r/w S.34 !PC    Imprisonment for life
& A-15
                                                                              c
A-8 and A-I 7             U/s 302 r/w S.34 !PC    Imprisonment for life for
                          (2 counts)              each count
A-1 to A-6, A-9 to A-13    U/s 302 r/w S.149      Imprisonment for life for
A-15, A-16, A-I 8 to A-    (7 counts)             each count
20
                                                                              D

A-14                       U/s 302 r/w S.149 !PC Imprisonment for life
                           (8 counts)            for each count

A-8 and A-17               U/s 302 r/w S.149 !PC Imprisonment for life for
                           (6 counts)            each count                   E
A-14andA15                 U/s 307 !PC            RI for I0 years
AI to A6, AS to A13        U/s 307 r/w S.149 !PC RI for I0 years
and AI6 to A20
                                                                              F
       4. Against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2006 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, criminal appeals were preferred
before Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court while
disposing of Criminal Appeal Nos.313, 323, 328, 406, 451 and 539 of
2006, found that there was no evidence to warrant conviction of AS, G
A 13, A 19 and A20 in the instant case. However, the High Court found
all other accused guilty of eight barbaric murders and attempt to murder
while forming unlawful assembly. The High Court, in paragraph 66 of its
judgment, modified the conviction and sentence i111posed by the lower
Comi as follows:
                                                                         H
598             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A           i. "Al to A4, A6, AS to Al 2 and Al4 to Al 7 are convicted
            under section I 4S !PC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
            imprisonment for one year;
            ii. Al to A4, A6, AS to Al2, Al4 to Al7 are convicted under
            section 302 read with Section 149 IPC(SCounts) instead of
B           302 read with 34 !PC and sentenced to undergo imprisonme11t_"
            for life for each count;
            iii. We confirm the conviction of Al to A4, A6, AS to Al2 and
            Al 4 to Al 7 under Section 307 read with Section 34 !PC and
            sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years;
c           iv. We set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A5,
            AJ3, Al9 and A20."
      The High Court in paragraph 73 of the impugned judgment, confirmed
      the direction given by the Trial Court that the sentences of life
      imprisonment imposed for each count and sentence of imprisonment for
D      I 0 years, shall run consecutively. Aggrieved by the judgment and order
      dated 14.12.2007, passed by the High Court, the appellants have
      approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
      Constitution oflndia. All the connected appeals were clubbed together
      for common adjudication since they are arising out of same impugned
E     judgment.
            5. Since legitimacy of the consecutive life sentences in the Iight of
      Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in sho11 'Cr.P.C.) was
      challenged in these appeals, before arriving at the conclusive findings, a
      three-Judge Bench of this Court referred the matter to larger Bench
F     and the said larger Bench - Constitution Bench, vi de its judgment dated
      19.07.2016, examined the legitimacy of consecutive sentences of life
      imprisonment and held that "while multiple sentences of imprisonment
      for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences
      punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded
      cannot be directed to run consecutively." The Constitution Bench
G     further held as follows:
            "The power of the Court to direct the order in which sentences
            will run is unquestionable in view of the language employed in
            Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can, therefore, legitimately
            direct that the prisoners shall first undergo the term sentence before
H           the commencement of his life sentence. Such a direction shall be
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY                                599
 INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PINAKl CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

      perfectly legitimate and in tune with Section 31. The converse          A
      however may not be true for ifthe Court directs the life sentence
      to start first it would necessarily imply that the term sentence
      would run concurrently: That is be.cause once the prisoner spends
      his life in jail, there is no question of his undergoing any further
      sentence."
                                                                              B
       6. Therefore, th..: only substantial question which remains for our
consideration in the present case is whether the High Court in the facts
and circumstances of the case, was justified in modifying the conviction
from that under Section 302 read with Section 34 lPC to that of Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC.
                                                                              c
       7. Mr. ATM Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants submitted that in view of the deposition of PW 12, all
the eye-witnesses (PWl-PW4) cannot be believed as it casts suspicion
on the prosecution version as it is admitted by PWl2 in his cross-
examination that he saw only three bodies strewed and no injured person
at the place of occurrence. He further submitted that the investigation       D
has not been done properly in the present case, and therefore, the accused
persons deserve to be acquitted. It was further submitted that there is
substantive difference between Section 34 and Section 149 oflPC and
substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 would result in prejudice to the
accused and $erefore the same ffi!lY not be permitted. Further, no             E
satisfactory explanation to such substitution was given. He further
submitted that there was delay in the lodging ofFIR which creates doubts.
       8. Per contra, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for
respondent submitted that the volunteered statement of AS was reduced
into writing, being Exh.29, whereby 7 aruvals, I 0 velsticks, a toy gun and F
3 knives were recovered and it was clearly spoken to by the prosecution
witnesses that Al stabbed deceased (in short 'D') DI with velkambu on
his stomach; A2, A3, A4,A6,AIO,Al4,Al8 attacked 04, 05, D6with
velstick and aruval; A7 attempted to attack PW3 with velstick; AS stabbed
07 with velstick on his left arm; A9 attacked DI repeatedly with aruval;
A 11 stabbed 02 on his stomach with velstick; A 12 stabbed 03 with G
velstick on his stomach and chest, left thigh and other parts of body; A 15
attacked 02 with aruval on his left hand; A 16 attacked 03 with aruval
on his right hand; A 17 attacked 07 with aruval on his left hand. It was
further submitted that all the accused were armed with sharp and deadly
weapons and were hiding in the bushes. When the deceased came near H
600             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     the place of occurrence, appellants attacked them shouting slogans that
      "kill them", "hack them" and thus their act itself substantiates the
      commission of crime within the meaning of Section 302 read with 149 of
      IPC.
             9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the
B     averments made by the appellants in the present case are not sustainable
      as eye-witnesses have vividly spoken about the presence and modus-
      operandi of the offence committed showing their motive, which are
      also essential ingredients to confirm conviction under Section 149 of
      IPC. The plea of the appellants that a weapon, like velstick, cannot
 C    cause death was rightly rejected by the High Court as it was observed
      by the High Court that cut injury could have been caused by velstick,
      depending upon the manner in which the weapon was used. Since PW-
      12 is.not the eye-witness of the occurrence, he cannot state any
      substantive part of the offence and the manner in which the offence
      would have been committed. It was lastly submitted by the learned counsel
D     for the respondent that albeit there was agitated atmosphere at the village,
      complaint was given the same day at 05:30 pm and thus there was no
      delay in lodging the FIR.
              10. Having heard the learned i:;ounsel on both sides, the legality of
      the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, has been found
 E    disputed. As regards the case in the light of common intention as per
      Section 34 !PC, this Court in Devi Lal Vs. State ofRajastlum, ( 1971)
      3 sec 471, in para 13 held that "the words 'in furtherance of the
      common intention of all' are a most essential part of Section 34 of
      the Indian Penal Code. It is C0//1//1011 intention to commit the crime
      actually com//litted The common intention is anterior in ti/lie to the
 F    co111111issio11 of the crime. Common intention means a pre-arranged
      plan: "
             11. But th is case doesn't appear to fulfil I the essentials ofcommon
      intention. The·emphasis of such sort of constructive liability and the
      legality of conviction by applying Section 34 or Section 149 !PC, have
 G    been examined by Courts in several cases. In Willie (William) Stanley
      Vs. State ofM.P., AIR 1956 SC 1I6, it was held as follows:
             "Section 34, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code provide
             for crill1inal liability viewed ji·om different angles as regarding
             actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a
 H           co//lmon object or a common intention and 'the charge is
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 601
 INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

      rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive . A
      liability' without specifying who are directly liable and who
      are sought to be made constructively liable. In such a situation,
      the absence of a charge under one or other of the various
      heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to
      be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for a substantive B
      offence without a charge can be set aside, prejudice will have
      to be made out."
       12. Moreover, a distinction between "common intention' and
'common object' was made out by this Court in the case of Cflflitarmal
Vs. State of Raja!itllan, (2003) 2 SCC 266 as under:
                                                                             c
      "A clear distinction is made out between common intention
      and common object in that common intention denotes action
      in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-
      arranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while
      common object does not necessarily require proof of prior
      meeting of minds or pre-concert. Though there is substantial D
      difference between the two sections, they also to some extent
      overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of
      each case whether the charge under section 149 overlaps the
      ground covered by section 34."
       13. In the present case, motive is ~een in the collective testimony   E
of eye-witnesses PW1-PW3 when accused came out from the bushes
shouting "kill them", "hack them", "fire them", as also mentioned in
the complaint Exhibit P-1. A child was also mercilessly attacked in the
incident with a spear on his chest. Accused No.7-Muthuramalingam
snatched away the child from her mother Indira Gandhi and killed her         F
too with velstick.
       14. Even PW4 (though not an eye-witness of whole occurrence)
also hid in the nearby bushes to save his life. In his statement he also
corroborated the factum of hearing shooting and also after identifying
accused Muthuramlingam stated that "his wife was also killed by G
accused Muthuramlingam              with     knife      and accused
Dhakshinamoorthi cut his wife with aruval". In a similar case of
Umesfl Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Biflar, (2000) 6 SCC 89, this Court
observed:
      "A report was made by Jugeshwar Singh (PW 7) alleging that
      the appellants herein along with several other persons                 H
602'           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 8 S.C.R.


 A          numbering about 20 came to the "khalihan" (threshing floor)
            of Bhola Singh where he and other members of his family
            were threshing paddy. They tried to take away the paddy.
             Upendra Singh threatened that any resistance would be met
            with such action which mil;ht <!Ven result in death. Thereafter
            Rajendra Singh hit Bhola Singh with a lathi and Upendra
 B
            Singh moved backwards awl fired at Bhola Singh with a gun
            as a result of which Bhola Singh was hit andfell down writhing
             i11 pain. Saryu Singh was shot at by Rajendra Singh and
            Bhagwat Dayal Singh, who was also inflicted a bhala-blow
             by Arvind Singh, appellant in the connected matter, Umesh
 c          Singh and Sheonandan Singh fired at Rajdeo Singh as a result
             of which he fell down. When Dharmshila, wife of Bhola Singh
            reached the threshing floor with her child aged about one-
            and-a-halj-years old in her arms, named Rinku, Sheonandan
            Singh snatched the child and threw the child on the ground
             as a result of which the child died. After investigation, the
 D
             police submWed a charge-sheet against seven persons named
             in the FIR as three of them, had died during the pendency of
             the investigation. The trial court convicted Sheonandan Singh
             and Upendra Singh under Section 302 !PC and sentenced
             them to death, one of the accused - Satyendra Singh, was
 E           acquitted and the rest of the accused persons were convicted
              under Section 302 !PC read with Section 149 and sentenced
             to life imprisonment. They were further convicted under
             Section 324 read with Section 148 !PC and under Sectio11 27
             of ihe Arms Act. On appeal to the High Court, conviction was
             maintained while the sentence of death on Sheonandan Singh
 F
             and Upendra Singh was reduced from one of death to life
             imprisonment thereafter. Appeals have been preferred before
             this Court".
       And later at Para No.3 of the judgment it was held:
             "Therefore, there is ample evidence on record in the shape of
 G           the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the witnesses who had
             sustai11ed injuries, sounding a ring of truth to the prosecution
              case pul forward, with the trial court and the High Court
              having taken identical views, we do not think there is any
             good reason to upset those findings.".
 H     Thus, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution case has been
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY                             603
 INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

well established by the testimonies of eye-witnesses PWl-PW3 and           A
corroborated by PW 4, wherein factum ofunlawful assembly was proved.
       15. Before arriving at the conclusion, we wish to supply emphasis
in the case of Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174 =
192 Supp (3) SCR 848, where the law on common object in an unlawful
assembly was explained as under:                                           B
     ."8. The true legal position in regard to the essential ingredients
      of an offence specified by s.149 are not in doubt. Section
      149 prescribes for vicarious or constructive criminal liability
      for all members of an unlawful assembly where an offence is
      committed by any member of such an unlawful assembly in c
      prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such
      as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
      committed in prosecution of that object. lt would thus be
      noticed that one of the essential ingredients of section 149 is
      that the offence must have been committed by any member of
      an unlmtful assembly, ands. 141 makes it clear that it is only D
      where jive or more persons constituted an assembly that an
      unlawful assembly is born, provided, of course; the other
      requirements of the said section as to the common object of
      the persons composing that assembly are satisfied. Jn other
      words, it is an essential condition of an unla'tlful assembly E
      that its membership must be five or more."
       16. Moreover, in the case of Maluu/eo Singh Vs. State ofBihar,
( 1970) 3 SCC 46, it was observed by this Court:
      "10. In the present case the facts and the circumstances show
      that the assault and the demolition of the stairs of the well F
      took place in the same transaction because the members of
      the unlawful assembly attacked Ram Prasad and his people
      and injured some of them simultaneously or in 'quick
      succession. Sarjug Mahto and Sura} Mahto both said that at
      the instigation of accused Ram Charan accused Manogi gave
                                                                    0
      a bhala blow near the left elbow of Sarjug Malito. Sarjug
      also said that accused Shea Pujan gave him a bhala blow
      below the elbow of the left hand and the appellant gave him
      a bhala blow on the finger of right hand. According to Suraj
      Mahto the appellant struck Smjug Mahto on the finger of
      his right hand. Suraj and Sarjug then raised an alarm. On H
604          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A        hearing the alarm Ram Prasad, Bharat and Lakhan came.
         Ram Prasad protested to the accused against the attack on
         Sarjug Mahto. At the instigation of accused Ram Charan
         accused Rajballam struck Ram Prasad With a bhala. Ram
         Prasad fell down and died there. Ram Lakhan then struck
         Bharat with a garasa. Ram Charan struck him on the head
B
         with a bhala. The assailants then fled away. The evidence
         proves that the common object of all the members of the
         assembly was that murder was likely to be committed in
         prosecution of a common object, namely, to commit murder,
         assault, mischief and criminal trespass. All the members of
c        the assembly were armed with weapons; they knew that murder
         was to be committed in prosecution of that object. It cannot,
         therefore, be said that the appellant is not guilty of the charge
         under Sections 3021149 of the Indian Penal Code."
         17. However, an overt act is not always an inflexible requirement
D of rule  of law to establish culpability of a member of an unlawful
  assembly. The crucial question is whether the assembly entertained a
  common unlawful object and whether the accused was oi1e of the
  members of such an assembly by intentionally joining it or by continuing
  in it being aware of the facts which rendered the assembly unlawful.
  Without unlawful object no assembly becomes an unlawful assembly.
E        18. Further, in paragraph 6 of Shamblumath Singh Vs. State of
  Bilwr, AIR 1960 SC 725, it was held by this Court:
         "Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of the
         vicarious liability of the members of an unlawjiil assembly
         for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that
F        assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlaHful
         assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of
         that object. If an unla11ful assembly is formed with the common
         object of committing an offence, and if that offence is
         committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the
         unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be
G
         vicariously liablefor that offence even if one or more, but
         not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence is committed
         by a member of an unlm11ful assembly and that offence is one
         which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely
         to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every
H        member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 605
 INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]

       so committed. But "members of an unlawful assembly may A
       have a community of object upto a certain point, beyond which
       they may differ in their objects, and the knowledge possessed
       by each member of what is likely to be committed in
       prosecution of their common object may vary not only
       according to the information at his command, but also B
       according to the extent to which he shares the community of
       object and as a consequence of this the effect of Section
       149 of the Indian Penal Code may be different on different
       members of the same unlawful assembly. "Jahiruddin v. Queen
       Empress, !LR 22 Cal 306."
        19. Furthermore, in the case of Mizaji Vs. State of UP, AIR 1959 C
SC 572, this Court observed:
       "From this conduct it appears that members of the unlawful
       assembly were prepared lo take forcible possession al any
       cost and the murder must be held to be immediately connected
       with the common object and therefore the case falls D
        under s.149, Indian Penal Code and they are all guilty of
        murder. This evidence of Hansram and Matadin which relates
        to a point of time immediately before the firing of the pistol
        shows that the members of the assembly at least knew that the
        offence of murder was likely to be committed to accomplish
        the common object of forcible possession. "                          E
        20. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the
learned counsel on both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the
accused-appellants did cause the death of eight persons in a barbaric
and brutal manner wherein merciless killing of a child of only I Y2 years
is also involved. Therefore, the accused in the present case do not deserve F
any sympathy.
        21. Hence, all the criminal appeals filed by the appellants are sans
merit and are liable to be dismissed. We uphold the judgment passed by
the High.Court as far as awarding of sentences is concerned. However,
the sentences shall run in conformity with the observations made by the G
Constitution Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed
in these appeals. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is
modified to the above extent and all the appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
Devika Gujral                                            Appeals disposed of.
                                                                                H