RAMESHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                      [2010] 12 S.C.R. 799


                            RAMESH                                     A
                                 V.
                    STATE OF HARYANA
           (Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2007 etc.)

                      OCTOBER 21, 2010
                                                                       B
    [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                   PRASAD, JJ.]

     Penal code, 1860:
                                                                       c
      s. 302 r. w. s. 149 - Unlawful assembly - Accused-
c..ppel/ants variously armed assembled at one place and
thereafter came to the place of occurrence and started assault
together - When deceased protested, one of the members
of the unlawful assembly shot him dead - Some accused
                                                                       0
caused injury by fire arm, 'gandasa', lathi, etc. to victim party
- Conviction of accused u/s. 302 with the aid of s. 149 - Held:
Accused had come and left the place of occurrence together
- They were, therefore, the members of the unlawful assembly
and offences were committed in pursuance of the common                 E
object and, each of them were liable for the offence committed
by any other member of the assembly - Accused rightly held
guilty u/s. 302 with the aid of s. 149.

      s. 149 - Applicability of - Held: For applicability of s. 149,
it is not necessary that each of the accused must commit               F
some illegal overt act.

     The prosecution case was that the accused: persons
including the appellants variously armed came to the
place of incident. One of the accused exhorted the others              G
to attack the victim party. The victims were given lathi and
'gandasa' blows and firing from pistol by the accused
persons resulting in death of one person and injuries to
others. The trial court convicted some accused under
                               799                                     H
    800      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2010] 12 S.C.R.

A Sections 302, 307, 448, 449, 323, 324, 148 read with section
  149 IPC and under Sections 25 and 54/59 of the Arms Act
  while other accused were acquitted. The High Court
  maintained the conviction of the appellants. Three
  appeals were filed by the appellants challenging the
B conviction and sentence whereas one appeal was filed
  against the acquittal of the two accused.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

         HELD: 1. The common object of an unlawful
C   assembly has to be gathered from the nature of the
    assembly, arms possessed by them and the behaviour
    of the assembly at or before the occurrence. It is an
    inference which has to be deduced from the facts and
    circumstances of each case. To attract the mischief of
D   Section 149, IPC, it is not necessary that each of the
    accused must commit some illegal overt act. When the
    assembly is found to be unlawful and if offence is
    committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in
    prosecution of the common object, every member of the
E   unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence
    committed by another member of the assembly. An
    assembly which is not unlawful when assembled may
    subsequently become an unlawful assembly. In the
    instant case, there was material to show that the
F   appellants variously armed, including the fire arms
    assembled at one place and thereafter came to the place
    of occurrence and started assault together and when
    protested by the deceased, one of the members of the
    unlawful assembly shot him dead and some of them
G caused injury by fire arm, 'gandasa', lathi, etc. to others.
  All of them had come and left the place of occurrence
  together. There was, therefore, no escape from the
  conclusion that appellants were the members of the
  unlawful assembly and offences were committed in
  pursuance of the common object and, therefore, each of
H them shall be liable for the offence committed by any
          RAMESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                     801


other member of the assembly. The trial court correctly         A
held them guilty with the aid of Section 149, IPC, which
was rightly affirmed in appeal by the High Court. [Para 9]
[805-F-H; 806-A-C]

   Chandra Bihari Gautam and others vs. State of Bihar          B
sec 2002 (9) sec 208 - relied on.
     2. So far as the acquittal of the accused-respondents
was concerned, the High Court on appraisal of the
material came to the conclusion that they were falsely
roped in. The said conclusion was arrived at on appraisal       C
of the evidence. The view taken by the High Court was
one of the possible views and that being so, order of
acquittal needed no interference by this Court. [Para 11]
[807-E]
                                                                D
                     Case Law Reference:
    sec 2002 (9) sec 208        relied on         Para 10
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 628 of 2007.                                                E

    From the Judgment & Order dated 25.5.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 918 of
2003.

                           WITH                                 F

Crl. A.Nos. 1272, 1273, 1274 of 2007

    Neeraj Kumar Jain, Nagender Rai, D.P. Singh, Avneet
Toor, Shuchita Shrivastava, Sanjay Jain, Amit Bhardwaj,
Umang Shankar, Sushant Kumar, Anil Nag, Rishi Malhotra,         G
Mrinmayer, Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.

    B.S. Mor, AG, Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Kusum Singh,
Naresh Bakshi, Kamal Mo.han Gupta, Kishan Datta for the
Respondent.                                                     H
    802       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. All these appeals
  by grant of leave arise from the judgment dated 25th May, 2006
  passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal
B Appeal No. 918-DB of 2003 and as such they were heard
  together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

        2. Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2007, Criminal Appeal No.
  1273 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1274 of 2007 have been
  filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and
C sentence whereas Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2007 has been
  filed against the acquittal of accused Chander Bhan and
  Lachhman.

          3. The prosecution started on the basis of the report given
o by PW.1, Randhir before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police
    in Civil Hospital, Jind on 21.4.1997 at 1.30 P.M. According to
    the First Information Report, there was litigation between Baba
    Krishangir and Baba Joragir in respect of 105 Killas of land in
    village Pokhri Kheri which travelled upto the Supreme Court and
E   decided in favour of Baba Krishangir, who was in possession
    thereof. It has been alleged that in August last year, followers
    of Joragir fired at Krishangir at Jind Court as Joragir wanted
    to take possession of the land. Informant claims to be the
    supporter of Krishangir and according to him on 21.4.1997 at
    7 A.M. he along with other persons including PW.3, Vedpal
F   were at the Dera and at that point of time appellant Rajbir
    (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1274 of 2007), appellants
    Rajesh, Dharamvir son of Rajmal, Hoshiara, Jage, Dharamvir
    son of Maha Singh, Ram Mehar alias Babru Dass and Prem
    Singh (appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1273 of 2007) and
G   Ramesh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.628 of 2007)
    besides the accused persons acquitted by the trial court and
    those acquitted by the appellate court variously armed came
    to the place of occurrence from the house of Joragir situated
    nearby. It has been alleged by the prosecution that Chander
H   Bhan, since acquitted by the High Court, gave exhortation to
           RAMESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                        803
          [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
                                               /


other accused persons to teach a lesson to the followers of          A
Krishangir present there for not allowing them to enter the land,
whereupon all the accused persons attacked them. This was
protested by Krishan a supporter of the Dera, who came to the
place of occurrence on hearing the noise and asked the
accused persons as to why they were assaulting the followers         B
of Krishangir. At this, appellant Dharambir son of Rajmal fired
from his pistol which caused injury on the face of Krishan and
he fell down there. Prem Singh fired from his pistol at PW.3
Vedpal on his right shoulder. Appellant Jage as also appellant
Teka gave lathi blows on the head and right arm respectively         c
of the informant's brbther, namely, Ramesh. Appellants Ramesh
and Ram Mehar besides another accused assaulted Raj
Kumar causing injuries on the left arm, left hand and head.
Appellant Dharambir son of Maha Singh gave two lathi blows
on the head of the informant, namely, Randhir. Appellant Rajbir
                                                                     0
gave gandasa blow on the shoulder of Phool Singh, whereas
appellant Hoshiara gave lathi blows on the right hip of the
informant. Appellant Rajesh is alleged to have shot at the
informant from his pistol causing injury on his left hand. During
the fight, according to the prosecution, Darbara son of Chhotu
Ram and Rajpal son of Nafe Singh came to the spot and
witnessed the occurrence and the accused persons on their
arrival ran away from the place of occurrence. Bhim Singh son
of Nafe Singh took the injured Krishan to the Civil Hospital, Jind
in a tractor but he succumbed to the injury in the way.

     4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case under
Sections 302, 307, 448, 449, 323, 324, 148 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 54/59 of
the Arms Act was registered against the appellants and other
accused persons since acquitted by the trial court as also the
appellate court. Police after usual investigation submitted the
charge-sheet and the accused persons were committed to the
Court of Sessions to face the trial. Charges were framed and
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring
home the charges the prosecution altogether examined 20
    804     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A witnesses and exhibited a large number of documents. Out of
  the witnesses examined by the prosecution PW. 1 Randhir,
  PW.2 Ajit, PW.3 Vedpal and PW.4 Rajpal, claim to be eye-
  witnesses to the occurrence and had sustained injuries. All of
  them in their evidence had supported the case of the
B prosecution.

         5. The trial court relying on the evidence of the eye-
    witnesses and doctors who examined them and who conducted
    the postmortem report came to the conclusion that the
    prosecution has been able to prove !ts case beyond all
C   reasonable doubt so far as the appellants herein and the
    respondents Chander Bhan and Lachhman are concerned.
    Accordingly, all of them have been held guilty under Sections
    148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149, 307/
    149, 325/149, 324/149 and 32_3/149 and 449 of the Indian
D   Penal Code and sentenced to undergo various terms of
    imprisonment, including imprisonment for life under Section
    302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 7,
    namely, Rajesh, Dharambir and Prem Singh in Criminal Appeal
    No. 1273 of 2007 have also been held guilty under Section 25
E   of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-. However,
    while convicting them the trial court has acquitted altogether
    nine accused persons. It is relevant here to state that besides
    the appellants herein, the trial court had also convicted accused
F   Teka, Lachhman, Chander Bhan and Ramphal and all of them
    have been acquitted by the High Court in appeal. It is further
    relevant here to state that against acquittal of Chander Bhan
    and Lachhman, appeal has been filed but the acquittal of Teka
    and Ramphal has not been assailed.
G
         6. Accused persons held guilty by the trial court preferred
    appeal and the High court on appreciation of the evidence
    came to the conclusion that the appellants herein assembled
    in the house of Joragir variously armed with pistol, gun, lathis,
    gandasa and bricks and the appellants were the members of
H
           RAMESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                       805
          [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
the unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object    A
caused the death of Krishan. Accordingly the High Court
maintained the conviction of the appellants, excepting Teka,
Lachhman, Chander Bhan and Ramphal. While acquitting
respondents Chander Bhan and Lachhman and other two
convicts, the High Court on appraisal of the materials came to     B
the conclusion that they have been falsely roped in the case.

     7. We have heard the Counsel representing the parties.

       8. It has been contended that the conviction of the
appellants with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code . C
is illegal as the appellants cannot be said to be the members
of unlawful assembly and committed the offence in prosecution
of their common object. They submit that all the appellants have
to be held guilty for their individual acts and it cannot be said
that when they assembled their common object was to cause D
the death of deceased Krishan or cause injuries to the injured
persons. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel particularly
emphasized that there being no overt act alleged against
appellant Ramesh of causing injury to the deceased, he cannot
be roped with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. E

     9. We do not find any substance in the submission of the
learned counsel. In our opinion the common object of an
unlawful assembly has to be gathered from the nature of the
assembly, arms possessed by them and the behaviour of the
                                                                   F
assembly at or before the occurrence. It is an inference which
has to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each
case. To attract the mischief of Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, it is not necessary that each of the accused must commit
some illegal overt act. When the assembly is found to be
unlawful and if offence is committed by any member of the          G
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, every
member of the unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence
committed by another member of the assembly. It has to be
borne in mind that an assembly which is not unlawful when
assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.            H
    806       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   In the present case there is overwhelming material to show that
    the appellants variously armed, including the fire arms
    assembled at one place and thereafter came to the place of
    occurrence and started assault together and when protested
    by the deceased, one of the members of the unlawful assembly
s   shot him dead and some of them caused injury by fire arm,
    gandasa, lathi, etc. to others. All of them have come and left
    the place of occurrence together. From what has been found
    above, there is no escape from the conclusion that appellants
    were the members of the unlawful assembly and offences have
C   been committed in pursuance of the common object and hence,
    each of them shall be liable for the offence committed by any
    other member of the assembly. In our opinion, the trial court
    correctly held them guilty with the aid of Section 149 of the
    Indian Penal Code, which has rightly been affirmed in appeal
    by the High Court.
0
         10. The view which we have taken finds support from the
    decision of Chandra Bihari Gautam and others vs. State of
    Bihar, SCC 2002 (9) SCC 208, in which it has been held as
    follows:
E
          "8. Section 149 has two parts. First part deals with the
          commission of an offence by a member of an unlawful
          assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
          assembly and the second part deals with the liability of the
          members of the unlawful assembly who knew that an
F
          offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the
          object for which they had assembled. Even if the common
          object of the unlawful assembly is stated to be
          apprehending Nawlesh Singh only, the fact that the
          accused persons had attacked the house of the
G
          complainant at the dead of night and were armed with
          deadly weapons including the guns, and used petrol
          bombs, proves beyond doubt that they knew that in
          prosecution of the alleged initial common object, murders
          were likely to be committed. The knowledge of the
H
             RAMESH v. STATE OF HARYANA                           807
            [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.J
       consequential action in furtherance of the initial common          A
       object is sufficient to attract the applicability of Section 149
       for holding the members of the unlawful assembly guilty for
       the commission of the offence by any member of such
       assembly. In this case the appellants, along with others,
       have been proved to have formed an unlawful assembly,              B
       the common object of which was to commit murder and
       arson and in prosecution of the said common object they
       raided the house of the informant armed with guns and
       committed offence. The courts below have, therefore,
       rightly held that the accused persons formed an unlawful           c
       assembly, the common object of which was to commit the
       murder of the informant and his family members and in
       prosecution of the said common object six persons were
       kilted. The appellants were also proved to have hired the
       services of some extremists for the purposes of eliminating
                                                                          D
       the family of the complainant."

     11. So far as the acquittal of respondents Chander Bhan
and Lachhman is concerned the High Court on appraisal bf the
material came to the c;:onclusion that they have falsely been
roped. The aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at on                    E
appraisal of the evidence. The view taken by the High Court,
in our opinion, is one of the possible views and that being so,
order of acquittal needs no interference by this Court.

    12. In the result, we do not find any merit in alt these              F
appeals and same are dismissed accordingly.

D.G.                                           Appeals dismissed.