Holding

The conviction under Section 148 IPC stands and cannot be altered to a conviction under Section 302 IPC absent a separate appeal by the State.

Summary

The appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar was convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code for rioting with a deadly weapon after allegedly stabbing his father during a violent incident. The trial court also convicted him under Section 302 for murder, but the State did not appeal that conviction, and the High Court upheld only the Section 148 conviction. In the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on the merits and argued that he had completed the three‑year sentence imposed under Section 148. The Court found the eyewitness testimony and post‑mortem report reliable, affirming that there was no infirmity in the conviction under Section 148. It held that Section 148 is a distinct offence from Section 302 and, absent a State appeal, the Court could not alter the conviction to murder. Consequently, the conviction and sentence under Section 148 were confirmed, the appellant was deemed to have served his term, and he was ordered to be released upon payment of the fine.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the evidence supporting conviction under Section 148 IPC.
Whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 302 IPC in the appeal despite the State not appealing that conviction.
Whether the appellant has completed the sentence imposed under Section 148 IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323, s. 455, s. 460

Subjects

Section 148 IPCrioting with deadly weaponSection 302 IPCmurderappeal procedurespecial leave petitionpost‑mortem evidenceconviction

Judgment

A RAJU @ RAJ KUMAR
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

MAY3, 2007

B [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

S.148--Conviction under, on the basis of post mortem report and
C evidence of eye witness that appellant was carrying knife and stabbed
deceased on the chest-Knife and clothe:; recovered had stains of human
blood-Hence, no infirmity in order of conviction under s.148.

Administration of Criminal Justice: Conviction under s.148 !PC-State
D did not appeal against order of trial Court for convicting appellant under
s.302 in addition to his conviction under s.148-Hence, appellant cannot be
convicted under s.302 in appeal preferred by him.

Prosecution case was that PW-4 along with his father-deceased, had
gone to his uncle's house for dinner. While the deceased was sitting on the
E bed talking with PW.4's aunt and uncle, 10 to 12 persons entered the room
and surrounded the deceased. They were armed with knives, swords and pick-
axes. PW.4 was threatened and told not to shout. PW.4 in his FIR stated that
in his presence the accused-appellant stabbed his father. On the basis of the
information given by he appellant, weapons of offence and blood soaked clothes
were recovered. The appellant was charged under ss.148, 302, 1208 and 460
F IPC. However, he was convicted under s.148 IPC.

In appeal to this Court, two issues havi~ arisen for consideration. The
first concerns the merits of the case and second concerns an argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that he has completed the sentence of three
G years on 8.3.2007 as he was convicted for offence under s.148 IPC, which
has been disputed by the State on the ground that the appellant stood convicted
under s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed
the conviction.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
H 1156
RAJU@RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1157
r HELD: 1. There is no reason to disbelieve PW.4, the son of deceased. A
PW.4 has deposed that it was dinner time, that the deceased was sitting on
the bed and he was in conversation with his aunt. Both the courts below have
come to the conclusion, placing relianc:: on the post-mortem report, that there
was an injury on the chest of the deceased and that the knife and the clothes
recovered had human blood. The cause of the death, as given in the post- B
mortem report, was syncope. Both the courts below have come to the
conclusion, on the basis of the evidence of PW.4 that the appellant was a
member of the unlawful assembly; that he carried the knife; that he had
entered the room where the deceased was sitting on the bed and that deceased
was stabbed to death by the appellant. In the circumstances, there is no
infirmity to the extent of the conviction of the appellant under s.148 IPC. c
[Para 6] [1159-F-H; 1160-A-B]

2.1. The State did not go in appeal against the order of the trial court
for convicting him under s.302 IPC in addition to his conviction by the trial
court under s.148. Even the High court, by the impugned judgment, has merely
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant upholding his conviction under D
s.148 IPC. [Para 10] [1162-A-B]

2.2. Offence under s.148 IPC is distinct and separate from the offence
under s.302 IPC. The State should have filed an appeal seeking conviction of
the appellant under s.302 IPC apart from his conviction under s.148 IPC.
This has not been done in the present case. The offence of rioting with deadly E
weapon under s.148 IPC is separate and distinct from the offence under s.302
IPC. The appellant cannot be convicted under s.302 IPC in the appeal preferred
by the appellant. The State did not move the High Court in appeal against the
conviction under s.148; nor did the State seek enhancement of punishment
before the High Court in appeal. (Paras 10 and 13) (1162-D-E; 1165-A-B) F
Satbir v. Surat Singh and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 1160 and Nanda Kishore
Mohanty v. The State of Orissa, AIR [1961] Orissa 29, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 664 of
~ G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.01.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 660
of2005.

Jaspal Singh, R.K. Bhardwaj (for Mis Temple Law Firm), R.K. Kapoor, H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A M.K. Verma and Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appellant.
V. Madhukar, Surnit Ghosh, Sanjay Jha, Kumar Kartikay and Aruneshwar
Gupta for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
KAPADIA, J. (1) Leave granted.

(2) This criminal appeal by grant of special leave is directed against
impugned judgment dated 13.1.06 delivered by Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur
in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.660/04 confirming the conviction under Section
C 148 IPC imposed by Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Session
Case No.49/200 l.

(3) On 1.9.1989 at 9.20 pm Uttam Prakash (pw.4) lodged an FIR at Police
Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, in which he claimed that he and his father Ram
Kishan Khandelwal (since deceased) had left their house, situated at A-10,
D Sikar House Area, for his uncle's house at C-10, Madan Kunj, Prithvi Raj
Road, Jaipur, when at 9 pm while the deceased was sitting on the bed talking
with PW.4's aunt and uncle, 10 to 12 persons entered the room and surrounded
the deceased. These I0 to 12 persons were armed with knives, swords and
pick-axes. PW.4 was threatened and told not to shout. PW.4 in his FIR stated
E that in his presence the accused (appellant herein) stabbed his father, Ram
Kishan Khandelwal. According to the FIR, when PW.4's uncle raised an alarm
the appellant herein along with others fled. Ram Kishan Khandelwal died.
According to the FIR, there was enmity between Ram Kishan Khandelwal on
one hand and Hanuman, Hanif, Chhitar and Ramesh Shanker on the other
hand. On the basis of the said report investigation commenced. The case was
F registered for offences under Sections 147, 149 and 302 oflndian Penal Code
(for short, 'IPC'). On the basis of the information given by the appellant
herein, weapons of offence and blood soaked clothes were recovered. PW.
25, a Judicial Magistrate, conducted identification parade of the appellant
herein and others. The police thereafter submitted their charge-sheet, inter
G alia, against the appellant herein. 31 witnesses were examined. 74 documents
were produced by the prosecution. During the course of the trial it was
revealed that Ram Kishan Khandelwal and his family used to live at Sikar
House Area in Jaipur. Hanuman and Chhitar were his neighbours. They were
on inimical terms. There was property dispute. The bathroom ofHanuman and
Chhitar was demolished by Jaipur Development Authority. Hanuman and
H Chhitar were under the impression that the bathroom was demolished on the
RAJU @RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (KAPADIA, J.] 1159

complaint of Ram Kishan Khandelwal. Hanuman and Chhitar sold their house A
to Hanif(one of the co-accused). Prior to his death, Ram Kishan Khandelwal
had lodged an FIR with Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, in which he had
asked for police protection. Ram Kishan Khandelwal was also an accused in
many criminal cases. These cases were pending. According to the prosecution,
Hanuman, Chhitar and Hanif entered into a criminal conspiracy for the murder B
of Ram Kishan Khandelwal. According to the prosecution, however, the
appellant herein along with Aziz, Iqbal, Mahendra Singh, Hamid and Firoz
committed the actual murder. Therefore, according to the prosecution there
were two groups of persons, the ftrst set/group of persons entered a criminal
conspiracy but the actual murder was done by Iqbal, Aziz, Raju Naik (appellant
herein), Mahendra Singh, Hamid and Firoz. C
(4) In this case, we are concerned with the conviction of Raju Naik
(appellant herein). He was charged for offences under Sections 302, 120B, 148,
149 and 460 IPC.

(5) Two issues arise for determination in this criminal appeal. The first D
concerns the merits of the case and the second concerns an argument advanced
on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has completed the sentence of
three years on 8.3.2007 as he was convicted for offence under Section 148 IPC
which has been disputed by the State on the ground that the appellant stood
convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
E
(6) On the merits of the case, we find that there is no reason to
disbelieve Uttam Prakash (pw.4), the son of Ram Kishan Khandelwal (deceased).
The incident took place on 1.9.89 around 9 pm when the deceased was sitting
on the bed. Uttam Prakash (pw.4) and his father, Ram Kishan Khandelwal, had
gone for dinner at his uncle's place at C-10, Madan Kunj, Prithvi Raj Road, F
Jaipur. When the deceased was sitting on the bed Uttam Prakash (pw.4) saw
10 to 12 persons entering the room and surrendering Ram Kishan Khandelwal.
They were armed with knives, swords and pick-axes. Uttam Prakash (pw.4)
saw the deceased being stabbed. Uttam Prakash (pw.4) has deposed that it
was dinner time, that the deceased was sitting on the bed whereas he was
in conversation with his aunt. Both the courts below have come to the G
conclusion, placing reliance on the post-mortem report, that there was an
injury on the chest of the deceased and that the knife and the clothes
recovered vide Ex.P.32 had human blood. The cause of the death, as given
in the post-mortem report, was syncope. There was one more witness Rattan
Devi (pw.20) but she could not identify the appellant in the identification H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A parade. However, both the courts below have come to the conclusion, on the
basis of the evidence of pw .4 that the appellant herein (Raju @ Raju Kumar)
was a member of the unlawful assembly; that he carried the knife; that he had
entered the room where the deceased was sitting on the bed and that Ram
Kishan Khandelwal (deceased) was stabbed to death by the appellant herein.
B In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity to the extent of the
conviction of the appellant herein under Section 148 !PC.

(7) The question is : whether this Court in special leave petition could
convict the appellant under Section 302 !PC without any appeal from the
State.
c (8) Now coming to the second issue, we find that in this case seven out
of ten accused were convicted by Additional District and Sessions Judge,
No. I, (Fast Track) Jaipur City, Jaipur, for different offences. Appellant herein
was charged under Section 148, 302, 1208 and 460 IPC. However, he has been
convicted under Section 148 IPC. According to the trial court the cause of
D death is syncope. According to Butterworth's Medical Dictionary, 'Syncope'
is a temporary loss of consciousness caused by a fall in blood pressure.

(9) We also quote hereinbelow paras '65' and '66' of the said judgment
which read as follow:

E "65. From the above decision I have reached the conclusion that out
of all the accused, the accused No.(!) Abdul Aziz slo Salamuddin,
accused No.2 Raju @ Raj Kumar s/o Mali Ram, accused No.3, Durga
Das @ Bhaya s/o Bhanwar Lal have committed punishable crime
u/s 460, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code for which their crime is
hereby proved and the accused No.4, Feroz @ Shreya s/o Babu Khan
F has committed punishable crime under the Indian Penal Code Section
148, 302/149, 460 for which their crime is hereby proved and the
accused No.5 Hanuman Sahai s/o Mahadev Prasad, accused No.6
Chhitar Mal s/o Mahadev Prasad, accused No.7 Mohd. Haneef s/o
Abdul Hakim have committed punishable crime u/s 302/1208 of the
G Indian Penal Code for which their crime is hereby proved and the
accused No.8 Sayeed s/o Abdul Rasheed is acquitted from the
allegations of punishable crime under Section 302 read with Section
149, 148, 1208 and 460 of Indian Penal Code.

66. This case is a matter of murder, conspiracy to murder and co-
H operation in murder for which it would be justified to punish the
RAJU@RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (KAPADIA, J.] 1161

accused with the minimum punishment and for rest of the crime the A
accused were heard, for which they are punished with rigorous
imprisonment as mentioned below:

SENTENCE

Therefore, the accused mentioned below on being found guilty B
under Section as mentioned against each under Indian Penal Code are
punished as below:
SL Name of Section Punishment Penalty Illegible
No. the (sic)
Accused
I. Abdul Aziz 460 Ten years 500/- 3 months
c
2 Raju@Raj 148 Three years 200/- I month
Kumar
3. Durga Das 302 Life 1000/- 6 months
@Bhaya Imprisonment
D
4. Feroz@ 460 Ten years 500/- 3 months
Sherya
148 Three years 200/- I month
3021149 Life 1000/- 6 months
Imprisonment
E
5. Hanuman 302/1208 Life 1000/- 6 months
Sahai Imprisonment
6. Chhitar - do - - do - - do - - do -
Mal
7. Mohd. - do - - do - - do - - do - F
Haneef
The accused in this case are on bail, hence for getting the
punishment they are being taken in the judicial custody. The
punishment warrant of the accused may be prepared as per above and
sent to the Central Jail, Jaipur. Punishment of all the crime will be
simultaneous. In this case, the seized item of proof will be destroyed G
after expiry of six months of the appeal period. The file after recording
of the decision may be admitted in the office. The accused with the
proven crime may be provided with a copy of the decision without
any cost."
H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A (10) If one reads para '65' with para '66', we find that Abdul Aziz has
been accused No. I and he is convicted under Section 460 IPC. This is clear
from para '65'. It is in consonance with the chart in para '66'. Similarly, the
appellant (Raju @ Raj Kumar) was accused No.2 and he has been convicted
under Section 148 IPC. This is clear from para '65'. To this extent, para '65'
is in consonance with para '66' (chart annexed thereto). Durga Das was
B accused No.3 and he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC both under
paras '65' and '66'. It appears from the reading of para '65' that accused No. I
was convicted under Section 460 IPC, accused No.2 was convicted under
Section 148 IPC and accused No.3 was convicted under Section 302 IPC )_
respectively. The word "respectively" is omitted. Be that as it may, the State .....
c did not go in appeal against the order of the trial court convicting Raju @
Raj Kumar (appellant herein) for convicting him under Section 302 !PC in
addition to his conviction by the trial court under Section 148. Even the High
Court, by the impugned judgment, has merely dismissed the appeal filed by ...
the appellant herein upholding the conviction of Raju @ Raj Kumar under
Section 148 IPC. It is argued before us, on behalf of the State, that we should
D convict the appellant herein under Section 302 IPC, particularly, when the
reasoning given in the concurrent findings indicate that the appellant herein
had stabbed the deceased in the chest with the knife. In our view, such a
request cannot be granted. pffence under Section 148 IPC is disti11Et and
separate from the offence under Section 302 !PC. The State should have filed
E an appeal seeking conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC apart
from his conviction under Section 148 IPC. This has not been done in the
present case. The offence of rioting with deadly weapon under Section 148
!PC is separate and distinct from the offence under Section 302 IPC. Moreover,
according to the trial court, the cause of death is syncope.

F (I I) In the case of Satbir v. Surat Singh and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 1160,
~
the accused was sentenced under Section 302/148 IPC and, therefore, this
Court took the view that separate sentence under Section 148 was not
necessary.

(12) In the case of Nanda Kishore Mohanty v. The State of Orissa, AIR
G (1961) Orissa 29, it has been held that once a charge under Section 148 IPC
was framed the Magistrate must say whether the person charged is convicted
or acquitted. In that case, though the petitioner was charged under Section
..
148 IPC, the judgment of the Magistrate was silent as to whether petitioner
was guilty or not. The Additional Sessions Judge assumed that the petitioner
H stood convicted under Section 148 !PC altered the conviction to Section 147
RAJU@RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [KAPADIA,J.) 1163

t IPC. In that case, the petitioner was also charged under Section 455/149 !PC A
and under Section 323/149 !PC. In that connection, it was held as under :-

"(6) Another serious mistake committed by the Magistrate was his
omission to mention expressly in his judgmer.t as to whether he
convicted the petitioner under Section 148, I. P. C., or not. Once a
specific charge under that section was framed, the Magistrate must B
expressly say whether he convicts the accused of that offence or
whether he acquits him of that offence. Though the petitioner was
, charged under Section 148, the judgment of the Magistrate is silent
as to whether that charge was proved or not. The learned Sessions
Judge also committed an error by overlooking this mistake on the part C
of the trying Magistrate and assuming that there was a conviction
under that section by the Magistrate and that he would be justified
in altering it to a conviction under Section 147, I. P.C. It is indeed
unfortunate that in cases of this type where sentences of imprisonment
have been passed the two lower courts should have committed such
obvious mistake, presumably through negligence. D
(7) The net result therefore is that though the petitioner was
charged under Section 148, I. P. C., the trying Magistrate has not
passed any order, either of conviction or acquittal in respect of that
charge and the Sessions Judge has convicted him under Section 147,
I. P. C. The omission of the trying Magistrate to convict the petitioner E
under Section 148, I. P. C., must in the circumstances be held to mean
that he was acquitted of that charge. It is immaterial whether this
omission was due to oversight or any other reason. Once there is,
thus, an acquittal of the petitioner of the charge under Section 148,
I. P. C., the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to alter the conviction F
to one under Section 14 7, I. P. C. The State should have moved the
High Court for setting aside the order of acquittal in respect of the
charge under Section 148. But this they did not do.

(8) The acquittal of the petitioner in respect of the offence under

-• Section 148, I. P. C., will also affect his conviction under Section 455/ G
149, I. P. C., and 323/149, I. P. C. The conviction for these two offences
is based on the assumption that the petitioner was a member of the
unlawful assembly but his acquittal in respect of the charge under
Section 148, I. P. C., must necessarily lead to the inference that he was
not a member of such an assembly. Hence, his conviction under
Sections 455 and 323, I. P. C., read with Section 149, I. P. C., must be H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 5 S.C.R.

A set aside.

(9) There seems some force in the contention of the learned
Standing Counsel for the State of Orissa, that the initial mistake was
committed by the trying Magistrate through oversight, and he
suggested that the case might be remanded to the trying Magistrate
B for recording a proper order either of conviction or of acquittal in
respect of the charge against the petitioner under Section 148, I. P. C.

But I am not satisfied that at this stage it will be proper to remand
the case for the aforesaid purpose. The incident took place more than
four years ago, i.e., on 6-10-1955, and the petitioner has been sufficiently
c harassed because the appeal was first heard by the Addi. Sessions
Judge but the judgment was set aside by the High Court in Criminal
Revision and the appeal was reheard by the Sessions Judge of Cuttack.

It will not be proper at this belated stage to revive the whole
proceeding and subject the petitioner to further harassment of a
D conviction by the trying Magistrati! and also possibly of an appeal
before the Sessions Judge. The mistake was partly that of the trying
Magistrate and partly that of the prosecuting officers. The latter
should have noticed the omission in the judgment of the trying
Magistrate and then taken steps either by way of revision to this
E Court or by means of an appeal against acquittal, to get the mistake
rectified.

(10) For the aforesaid reasons, I would allow this revision petition,
set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the
learned Sessions Judge, and acquit him. He should be set at liberty
F forthwith."

(13) Before concluding we may state that one of the arguments advanced
on behalf of the State was that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant
if he was to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. It was contended on behalf
of the State that if one goes through the entire judgment of the trial court it

-
G is clear from the reasoning that the trial court had found the appellant guilty
of murder under Section 302 IPC and that the appellant has never made any
grievance against the said finding. It is submitted on behalf of the State that
even in the special leave petition, before this Court, this particular ground has
not been taken by the appellant. We find no merit in this contention. We
H cannot convict the appellant under Section 302 !PC in the appeal preferred
by the appellant herein. If we were to do so it would amount to travesty of
RAJU@RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [KAPADIA, J.] 1165
justice. We cannot convict the accused under Section 302 without the State A
filing an appeal in that regard. In the present case, the State did not move
the High Court in appeal against the conviction under Section 148 and nor
did the State seek enhancement of punishment before the High Court in
appeal.

(14) For the above reasons, we find that the appellant herein was B
convicted under Section 148 IPC; that, he was not convicted under Section
302 IPC; that he was sentenced for three years with fine in addition, one
month sentence in default of fine; and that Raju @ Raj Kumar (appellant
herein) has served sentence for three years commencing from 9.3.2004 ending
on 8.3.2007. We are not sure as to whether he has paid the fine of C
Rs.200/-, if not, he shall pay the fine forthwith. On payment of fine he should
be set at liberty forthwith. If he fails to pay Rs.200/- as fine then he will have
to serve the sentence of one month in default.

(15) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

D.G. Appeal allowed.