Holding

The evidence established a common object to cause death, the FIR delay was justified, the witness statements were admissible, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC stands.

Summary

On 22 January 1997, eight accused persons assaulted Dnyandeo (who later died) and Bapu (who was injured) in the village of Pangulgavhan, using hard blunt objects and dragging them to a river. The FIR was lodged the next morning due to a delay caused by priority given to medical treatment. The accused were convicted under IPC sections 302 read with 149 (common object to commit murder) and also under sections 147, 148, 149. On appeal, the accused argued that the FIR delay, the alleged omissions in witness statements, and the lack of a specific overt act should reduce the charge to section 325 or lead to acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the delay was justified, the witness statements were admissible, and the prosecution had proved a common object to cause death, thereby sustaining the conviction under section 302 read with 149. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The delay in lodging the First Information Report and its effect under Section 162 of the CrPC.
The admissibility and reliability of the statements of PW‑2, PW‑6 and other eye‑witnesses despite alleged omissions.
Whether the accused shared a common object to cause the death of the deceased within the meaning of Section 149 IPC.
Whether the charge should be limited to Section 325 IPC instead of Section 302 read with Section 149.
Whether the investigation was tainted to the extent of warranting a reversal of conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 162
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murdercommon objectSection 149 IPCFIR delayadmissibility of statementscriminal procedurehomicideconviction upheld

Judgment

VIKRAM AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

MAY 9, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860 :

ss.3021149-Common object-Accused persons 8 in number came
together-Assaulted deceased and injured indiscriminately PW. 2- Wife of C
deceased tried to intervene but they did not stop-Deceased and injured
dragged upto the river-Many other persons came there whereafter accused
fled-Accused rightly convicted under ss.3021149 as they had common object
to cause death of deceased.

Criminal trial :
D

FIR-Delay in filing-Effect-Held: Not fatal as there was no police ·
post in village-Police was informed-Witnesses waited for police party- ·
Thereafter only could send deceased and injured to hospital-Explanation
of PW-2 that they gave priority to treatment of deceased which occasioned E
delay in lodging FIR rightly accepted by Courts below-No reason to discard
testimony of PW-2 who is an independent witness-Evidence.

Prosecution case was that accused had committed murder of one D and
caused hurt to PW-6 on 22.1.1997 at about 10.30 p.m. FIR in respect thereof
was lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 23.1.1997 by PW-2 alleging that while he had been F
sleeping in his house after taking meal, his uncle PW-3 came to his house to
1 inform him that thieves had come and some 'tumult' is going on, whereupon
both of them went towards the place of occurrence and found that both the
deceased and the injured were being assaulted by accused persons. They,
although, tried to intervene, but were threatened not to do so. He thereafter G
went to the house of the deceased and informed his wife who came to the place
of occurrence. Other persons also came to the spot. The injured were, by
that time dragged upto the river by the assailants. They were asked to stop
assaulting and were futhermore requested that in the event they had any
dispute with him in regard to their land should take recourse to the law
185 If
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A whereupon the assailants left them in the river and fled. Both the deceased
and PW-6 were found to be unconscious. P.W.2 informed the Officer in
charge of Police Station on telephone about the incident. On receipt of the
..
said information, a police officer visited the place of occurrence. The injured
were later on shifted by the police personnel to the Government Hospita~ where
D was declared dead. P.W.8 registered a case under ss. 147, 148,149 and
B 302 IPC. The prosecution case was proved primarily by PW-2 the informant,
PW-3, PW-4 and the injured witness P.W.6. Trial Court recorded conviction,
which was affirmed by High Court.

Hence the present appeal.
c Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Homicidal nature of death of the deceased and sufferance of
injuries by P.W. 6 is not in dispute. All the injuries were caused by hard and
blunt objects like lathi. It is also not in dispute that the parties were having
D dispute over some lands. It has also not been suggested that PW-2 was
enemically disposed of towards the appellants. Both the parties are from the
said Village. [Paras 7, 12, 13 and 14] (191-B; 192-E, F]

2. P.W.2 in the First Information Report as also in his deposition before -1
the Court categorically stated that eight persons i.e. the appellants and three
E juveniles were assaulting the deceased and PW-6, he was told that he had no
business to interfere as he was not concerned with the matter. He immediately
informed T and R. T and R also asked the appellants to leave the deceased,
but not only assault upon them did not stop, they were dragged towards the
river on the western side. Some other persons in the meantime came to the
spot and they also asked the accused to leave the victims. There was no police
F post in the village. As he was advised to make a phone call, keeping in view
the fact that the deceased and injured were to be brought back to the village,
P.W. 2 had to go to the house of M to wake him up as the Gram Panchayat
Office, where the phone was available, was adjoining to his house. His
information to the police officers could not have been in great details. As he
G was assured that the police would be coming, he waited for the police party.
The police party came at about 1 a.m. Then only the deceased and the injured
could be sent to the hospital. It appears from the evidence of Doctor, that the
deceased was brought to the hospital under a requisition letter. It was
evidently issued by the Investigating Officer. [Para 15] [192-F, G; 193-A, BJ

H 3. PW-6 was found to be semi-conscious and he was not in a position to
VIKRAM v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA 187
r· reply to the questions put to him. He was admitted as an indoor patient in the
. hospital on 23.1.1997 and was discharged only on 26.1.1997. In a situation of
A

- this nature, explanation of PW-2 and others that they gave priority to the
treatment of the deceased which occasioned the delay in lodging the First
Information Report has been rightly accepted by two courts below. There is
no reason to discard the testimony of P.W. 2 who is an independent witness. B
(Paras 17 and 18) (193-C, DJ

State ofMP. v. Kripam, [2003) 12 SCC 675 and Shankarlal v. State of
,!\ Rajasthan, [2004] 10 SCC 632, held inapplicable.

4. It may be true that P.W. 2 had informed the officer in charge of the
Police Station on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said cal! had C
to be made has been noticed. The Head Constable states that he had written
down the same but then it must have been a cryptic report and only for the
purpose of visiting the scene of occurrence. He as well as the Investigating
Officer did not say that it was a detailed report. If, in the aforementioned
premise, another First Information Report which was a detailed one came to D
be recorded, no exception can be taken to the same being treated as a First
Information Report. (Paras 24, 25 and 26) (194-D, E, F)

Tapinder Singh v. State ofPunjab and Anr., (1970) 2 SCC 113; State of
U.P. v. P.A. Madhu, AIR (1984) SC 1523; Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of
Gujarat, [1994) 2 SCC 685; Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1997) E
SC 322 and Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1975) SC 1453, referred
to.

5. The appellants have not questioned the factum of coming of the police
personnel to the village, taking the deceased and the injured to the hospital,
seizure of the articles, preparation of panchnamas etc.. As major part of the F
actions taken by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the First Information
Report in this case is not disbelieved, there is no reason as to why the
statement of P.W. 2 made before the Officer in-charge on 23.1.1997 at 7.30
a.m. should be discarded. (Para 29) (195-A, BJ
G
6.1. Trial Judge in his judgment categorically held that only an
additional statement of P.W. 6 was recorded on 8.8.1997 although initially
his statement was recorded immediately after the alleged incident. P. W. 6
had also informed the authorities that he was being threatened by the relatives
of the appellants not to disclose their names. Despite the fact that the statement
of P. W. 6 and other witnesses were on record and P. W. 6 had been threatened H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A by the relatives of the appellants, the same did not form part of the case diary.
The Trial Judge in the aforementioned situation opined that the Investigating
Officer was helping the appellants. (Paras 32 and 331 (196-A, B, C)

6.2. The reason for the Investigating Officer in interpolating the case
diary and not producing the purported recording of the information received
B by him on phone is not difficult to comprehend. There is doubt even in regard
to the statement of the Head Constable that he had recorded in writing any
information received from P.W. 2 on phone. Police Officers might not have
recorded the said statements only to help the appellants. The fact that
statements were made before the police at the earliest possible opportunity is
C available on record. The purported omissions related only to the details of the
occurrence, but the fact that P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 were eye witnesses to the
occurrence does not stand thereby disproved in any manner whatsoever. The
occurrence took place on 22.1.1997. They were examined in Court two and
a half years later. If there occurred some contradictions or even assuming
they had omitted to state the incident in great details, the same by itself would
D not lead to a conclusion that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the
case. [Paras 34) [196-F, G; 197-A, Bl

7. There is no reason to differ with the findings of the courts below, -<
particularly in view of the fact that P. W. 6 was an injured witness. He
admittedly received serious injuries, remained unconscious for a long time
E and had to remain as indoor patient till 26.1.1997. So far as the submission
of the appellants that they did not have any common object to cause death is
concerned, there is no merit therein. Eight persons came together. They
assaulted the deceased and P.W. 6 indiscriminately. Despite having been
asked to stop assaulting them, not only by P. W. 2 but also by the wife of the
F deceased, they did not pay any heed thereto. They continued to assault them.
They dragged them to the west bank of the river and only left them there
when a large number of people gathered and asked them not to do so.
[Para 35) [197-B, C, DJ

Bhima alias Bhimrao Sida Kamble and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra,
G 120021 sec 33, held inapplicable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 431 of
2006.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2005 of the High Court
H of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 398
VIKRAM v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 189

of 1999. A
Arvind Sawant, Sudhanshu Choudhari, Rajshri Dubey and Naresh Kumar
for the Appellants.

Sushi! Karanjkar and Ravindra Adsure (for Aniruddha P. Mayee) for the
Respondent. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. Appellants who are five in number are before us
being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment of the High
Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad dated 5.9.2005 passed C
in Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 1999 affirming a judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 30.9.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions
Case No. 18 of 1998 convicting the appellants herein inter alia for commission
of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 147 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
D
2. Appellants herein were proceeded against for committing an offence
of culpable homicide amounting to murder of one Dnyandeo and for causing
y hurt to one Bapu (P.W. 6) on 22.1.1997 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night in
Village Pangulgavhan within the Police Station Ashti in the District of Beed.
First Information Report in respect thereof was lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 23 .1.1997 E
by PW-2 Rohidas Gite alleging that while he had been sleeping in his house
after taking meal, his uncle Ajinath Gite (P.W. 3) came to his house to inform
him that thieves had come and some 'tumult' is going on, whereupon both
of them went towards the place of occurrence and found that both the
'deceased' and the 'injured' were being assaulted by accused No. I Vikram,
accused No. 2 Mokinda, accused No. 3 Tatyaba, accused No. 4 Bhagan, F
accused No. 5 Rambhau, alongwith some others (who being juvenile, had
been separately tried). They, although, tried to intervene, but were threatened
not to do so. He thereafter went to the House·of the deceased and informed
his wife as well as Raosaheb Namdeo Gite who came to the place of occurrence.
Other persons including Ashruba Pandharinath, Mahadeo Pandharinath, G
Shyamrao Gajaba, Ashok Baba, Mahadeo Lahanu also came to the spot. The
injured were, by that time dragged upto the river by the assailants. They were
asked to stop assaulting and were furthermore requested in the event they
had any dispute with him in regard to their land should take recourse to the
law whereupon the assailants left them in the river and fled. Both the deceased
and Bapu Kisan Gite (PW-6) were found to be unconscious. H
-.-
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 3. P.W. 2 Rohidas was advised by others to infonn the Police Station
on telephone whereupon he went to Village Bhalavani alongwith Ajinath,
Gangaram and Bayaji Shiva at about 1:00 a.m. and infonned the Officer in
charge of Police Station on telephone. On receipt of the said infonnation, a
police officer visited the place of occurrence at Village Pangulgavhan. In the
B meanwhile, the injured were shifted in front of the house ofLaxmibai Ashruba
Gite. They were later on shifted by the police personnel to the Government
Hospital at Ashti. Whereas Dnyandeo Vithoba Gite was declared dead, PW-
6 was admitted in the hospital. Mr. Suresh Gange , P.W. 8 registered a case
under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302. He seized three articles including a
bamboo stick measuring about 2 ft. and 5 inches with a diameter of about 2
C inches. Other articles were also seized. Appellants were arrested on 24. 1.1997.
The prosecution case was proved primarily by PW-2 the infonnant, PW-3
Aginath, PW-4 Janardhan and the injured witness P.W. 6 Bapu.

4. The learned Trial Judge by reason of a judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 30.9.1999 on arriving at a finding of guilt, awarded life
D imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment of 6 months for
commission of the offence under Section 149, fine of Rs. 500/- each under
Section 147 read with Section 149 and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code. The appeal preferred by the appellants thereagainst
E has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

5. Mr. Arvind V. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants in support of this appeal inter alia would submit;

(i) P.W. 2 having infonned the officer-in-charge of Police Station Ashti
on telephone which having been recorded in writing, the First
F Infonnation Report lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 23.1.1997 is barred under
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(ii) Some of the witnesses having been examined by the Investigating
Officer on 8.8.1997, their statements could not have been relied upon.
G (iii) The fact that First Infonnation Report reached the Magistrate only
on 24.1.1997 would go to show that the same was an anti-timed one.

(iv) The witnesses having failed to disclose vital infonnation in their
-
statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court committed a serious
H illegality in passing the impugned judgment.
VIKRAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (S.B. SINHA, J.) 191

(v.) In any view of the matter, no specific overt act having been A
attributed to any of the appellants herein, conviction under Section
302/149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and they
should be convicted only under Section 325 thereof.

6. Mr. Sushi! Karanjkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State would, however, support the impugned judgment. B
7. Homicidal nature of death of the said Dnyandeo is not in dispute.
Sufferance of injuries by Bapu Kisan Gite, P.W. 6 is also not in dispute.

8. Dr. Subhash Mahadeo Patharkar P.W. 7 conducted the post mortem
examination. He found the following ante-mortem injuries. c
"!. C.L. W. on the right parietal region placed vertically l W' x l" x
bone deep. No evidence of fracture felt on palpation, object used
was hard and blunt.
2. C.L. W. on right front to parietal region, oblique, placed 2" x I"
D
x bone deep, no evidence of fracture, felt on palpation, object
used hard and blunt.
~

r 3. C.L.Ws. two in number of right index finger, 'h" x \!,'' x 1/8", each,
object was hard and blunt.
4. An abrasion on right Ileac region, curved 2" x 118". E
5. C.L. W. on right leg I" x 'Ii x \4''.
6. Abrasion on right medical malleouls, 'Ii" x 114".
7. Multiple contusions over the back of variable size and shape
placed in variable directions caused by Lathi. F
8. Multiple imprint abrasion over back of variable size, caused by
chain of variable directions.
9. Six contusions on right buttock and right thigh, horizontally
placed, one above the other 7" x 1 'h" object hard and blunt
(Lathi)" G
9. Amongst others, on the left lungs, two internal injuries were found;

"!. Contusion on left lower lobe 3" x 2 '/," cut section contains
blood.
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 2. Contusion on left upper lobe, 4" x 3" cut section contains blood."

10. The said two injuries were referable to external injury No. 7.

11. PW-9, Dr. Dattu Zambre examined Babu Kisan Gite and found the
following injuries on his person;
B I. Contused lacerated wound on left parietal region, 8 cm. x 0.5 cm.
x bone deep, margins irregular anteroposterior in direction.
2. Contusion over left thigh, ant, side in middle 1/3, 8" x 1 Yi''
-\
vertical direction margins irregular. /

C 3. Multiple contusions over right anteromedial aspect of thigh, 5"
x 1 Yi", 4" 1 Yi", 6" x 1 Yi'', 4" x 1 Yi", 5" x Yi'' , intermixed with
each other.
4. Contusion, on abdomen above unblicious 3" x l" horizontal,
irregular margins.
D 5. Contused abrasion on left shin of tibia Lower I/3rd, Y.t x '!."
margins irregular.
6. Contused Abrasion, on right shin of tibia Lower 1/3, \14'' x '!.'', >-
margins irregular." --...

E 12. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects like lathi.

13. It is also not in dispute that the parties were having disputes over
some lands.

14. It has also not been suggested before us that PW-2 was enemically
F disposed of towards the appellants. Both the parties are from the said Village.
15. P.W. 2 in the First Information Report as also in his deposition
before the Court categorically stated that eight persons i.e. the appellants
herein and three juveniles were assaulting the deceased and PW-6. On his
asking them not to assault the deceased and P.W. 6, he was told that he had
G no business to interfere as he was not concerned with the matter. He immediately
informed Tulsabai and Raosaheb. Tulsabai and Raosaheb also asked the
appellants to leave the deceased, but not only assault upon them did not
stop, they were dragged towards the river on the western side. Some other
persons in the meantime came to the spot and they also asked the accused
H to leave the victims. There was no police post in the village. As he was
-
VIKRAM v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 193

advised to make a phone call, keeping in view the fact that the deceased and A
injured were to be brought back to the village, P.W. 2 had to go to the house
of Moinoddin Pathan to wake him up as the Gram Panchayat Office, where
the phone was available, was adjoining to his house. His information to the
police officers could not have been in great details. As he was assured that
the police would be coming, he waited for the police party by the side of B
Ashti Shalwani to Pangulgavan Road. The police party came at about 1 a.m.
They came in a police jeep to the house of Laxmibai and then onl~, the
deceased and the injured could be sent to the hospital. It appears from the
evidence of Dr. Dutta, that the deceased was brought to the hospital under
a requisition letter. It was evidently issued by the Investigating Officer.

16. The said requisition letter was proved and marked as Exh. 49.
c
17. PW-6 was found to be semi-conscious and he was not in a position
to reply to the questions put to him.

18. He was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital on 23.1.1997 D
and was discharged only on 26.1.1997. In a situation of this nature, explanation
of PW-2 and others that they gave priority to the treatment of the deceased
and the accused which occasioned the delay in lodging the First Information
Report and the same having been accepted by two courts below, we do not
find any reason to disagree. We find no reason to discard the testimony of
P. W. 2 who is an independent witness. E
19. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Savant on a decision of this
Court in State of MP. v. Kriparam, (2003] 12 SCC 675. In that case, the High
Court had reversed a judgment of acquittal. This Court found the evidence
of the eye-witnesses to be artificial. At one stage they had said that they were
at the same place but lat::r on changed their story alleging that they had been F
sleeping separately. The Court found so much contradictions in regard to the
-· direction and place the witnesses said to have run away from the alleged
place of occurrence and their hiding at other place till next morning, was
found to be un-acceptable.
G
20. It is on the aforementioned backdrop of events, this Court opined
that the delay in lodging the First Information Report was attempted to be
explained only by inventing the story that they fled away from the scene of
occurrence and were hiding till 8 o'clock in the morning. This Court furthermore
found contradictions even in relation thereto.
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 21. The said decision cannot be said to have any application in the
instant case.

22. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Savant on Shankarlal v. State
of Rajasthan, [2004] 10 SCC 632. In that case also, the testimonies of the
alleged eye-witnesses were not believed. Therein also, the explanation for
B lodging the First Information Report after some delay viz. that the informant
upon seeing the occurrence got scared and took different road, reached the
village at about 4 or 4.15 pm, whereas the occurrence had taken place at about
1.30 a.m., the delay in lodging the First Information Report at 3.15 a.m. on the /
next date was not believed stating;
c "In such circumstances this unexplained long delay also creates a
doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Once we are not convinced with the evidence of PW 6 then there is
no other material to base a conviction on the appellant, hence we are
of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt,
D therefore, this appeal succeeds and is allowed."

23. The said decision also has no application to the fact of the present
case.

24. It may be true that P.W. 2 had informed the officer in charge of the
E Police Station on telephone, but the circumstances in which the said call had
to be made has been noticed by us heretobefore.

25. The Head Constable states that he had written down the same but
then it must have been a cryptic report and only for the purpose of visiting
the scene of occurrence. He as well as the Investigating Officer did not say
F that it was a detailed report.

26. If, in the aforementioned premise, another First Information Report
which was a detailed one came to be recorded, no exception can be taken to
the same being treated as a First Information Report.

G 27. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Savant on Tapinder Singh v. State
of Punjab and Anr.,[1970] 2 SCC 113. Therein this Court held that cryptic and
anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify commission
of a cognizable offence cannot be treated as first information report.

28. See also State of U.P. v. P.A. Madhu, AIR (1984) SC 1523, Ramsinh
H Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, [1994] 2 SCC 685 and Binay Kumar Singh
..
VIKRAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (S.B. SINHA, J.] 195

~).- v. State of Bihar, AIR (1997) SC 322 and Soma Bhai v. State a/Gujarat AIR A
(1975) SC 1453.

29. We must notice that the appellants have not questioned the factum
of coming of the police personnel to the village, taking the deceased and the
injured to the hospital, seizure of the articles, preparation ofpanchnamas etc ..
As major part of the actions taken by the Investigating Officer pursuant to B
the First Infonnation Report in this case is not disbelieved, We fail to see any
reason as to why the statement of P. W. 2 made before the Officer in-charge
on 23.1.1997 at 7.30 a.m. should be discarded.
·~
30. Before embarking upon the other contentions raised by Mr. Savant,
we may notice a disturbing feature of this case. Statements of the witnesses c
and in particular, the injured witness, P. W. 6 had been recorded. The said

- statement was available on the records of the learned trial judge while
considering of the application for bail filed by the appellants.

31. The learned trial judge in his judgment in the proceeding sheet dated D
27.2.1997 noticed as under:-

-( "7. Perused the case papers. It reveals from the case papers that not
...- only the complainant is an eye witness but Ajnath, Rohidas, Tulsabai
and Inured Bapu also stated about the occurrence consistently. The
post mortem report support the fact of occurrence as narrated by the E
eye witnesses. On perusal of the F.I.R. and other witnesses at least
at this stage it cannot be said that F.LR. is belated. Thus from the
aforesaid material there is aprimafacie case against all these applicants
for the offence punishable u/secs. 147, 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C. The
investigation is in progress. Some of the accused are yet to be arrested.
Admittedly there is a long standing enmity between the accused F
persons and the family of the deceased and others. It is seen from the
case papers that these applicant and co-accused anned with deadly
weapons attacked on deceased and his nephew Bapu and though eye
witness attempted to rescue them the accused did not allow them to
came and make any intervention. On perusal of the case papers it is G
seen that the injured Bapu made a repot that some of the relatives of
the accused gave threats to him for not disclosing the names of the
accused before the police. Thus if the circumstances in which the
--.... alleged incident taken place, the conduct of the accused persons at
the relevant time of the alleged incident and the above referred facts
considered together I find much substance in the contention of the H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
-
A learned A.P.P ......"

32. Learned Trial Judge in his judgment categorically held that only an
additional statement of P. W. 6 Bapu was recorded on 8.8.1997 although initially ,
his statement was recorded immediately after the alleged incident. P. W. 6 had
also informed the authorities that he was being threatened by the relatives
B of the appellants not to disclose their names.
33. Despite the fact that the statement of P. W. 6 and other witnesses
were on record and P.W. 6 had been threatened by the relatives of the
appellants, the same did not form part of the case diary. The learned Trial
Judge in the aforementioned situation opined that the Investigating Officer
C was helping the appellants in the following words.

"57. For above stated reasons, so far as the attack of the defence on
record of the belated statement of P.W. 6 Bapu is concerned, looses
it much force be cause from the previous Court record itself it is
-
evident that there was statement of P.W. 6 Bapu which was produced
D for the scrutiny and perusal of the court in the month of February
1997 itself while entertaining the bail application and like magic vand
the said statement vanished from the police record for which P.W. 12
P.S.I. Ovhal could not give any satisfactory explanation. Leave apart
the question of vanishing of the statement from the, police record
E there is not a single word about it in the entire police diary which
itself, I am painful to point out reflects on dishonest, perfunctory
manner of investigation by the concerned police officer. I am really
surprised as to how the defence could at this juncture venture to
submit that the investigation is tainted favoring the accused while
from the above fact the fact is otherwise."
F
34. The reason for the Investigating Officer in interpolating the
case diary and not producing the purported recording of the information
received by him on phone is not difficult to comprehend. We have grave
doubt even in regard to the statement of the Head Constable that he had
G recorded in writing any information received from P.W. 2 on phone. Police
Officers might not have recorded the said statements only to help the
appellants. We would have otherwise held that benefit therefor should go to
the accused, but in this case the fact that statements were made before the
police at the earliest possible opportunity is available on record. We have
been taken through the deposition of the eye witnesses. In particular our
H attention has been drawn to purported omissions of the said witnesses. We
VIKRAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA. J. J 197
-~
~ have considered each one of them carefully. The purported omissions related A
only to the details of the occurrence, but the fact that P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 were
eye witnesses to the occurrence does not stand thereby disproved in any
manner whatsoever. The occurrence took place on 22.1.1997. They were
examined in Court two and a half years later, If there occurred some
contradictions or even assuming they had omitted to state the incident in
B
great details, the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that the
appellants had been falsely implicated in the case.

35. We, see no reason to differ with the findings of the courts below,
particularly in view of the fact that P.W. 6 was an injured witness. He admittedly
received serious injuries, remained unconscious for a long time and had to c
remain as indoor patient till 26.1.1997. So far as the submission of the learned
counsel that the appellants did not have any common object to cause the
death of Dnyandeo is concerned, we also find no merit therein. Eight persons
came together. They assaulted the deceased and P.W. 6 indiscriminately.
Despite having been asked to stop assaulting them, not only by P.W. 2 but
D
also by the wife of the deceased, they did not pay any heed thereto. They
continued to assault them. They dragged them to the west bank of the river
-< and only left them there when a large number of people gathered and asked
r them not to do so.

36. The question, as to whether in a given case common object has been E
made out or not, will depend upon the facts and circumstances thereof;
Conduct of the parties and the manner in which the occurrence has taken
place, will have some bearing on the question. We, keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of this case, are of the opinion that the submission that
it is not a case where despite the fact that specific overt acts on the part of
F
each of the appellant herein had not been specifically stated, they cannot be
held guilty only under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

37. In Bhima alias Bhimrao Sida Kamb/e and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra, [2002] 7 SCC 33, whereupon Mr. Savant placed strong reliance,
this Court noticed that some accused persons were held to be carrying G
common object whereas another was held to have common intention. There
was no evidence as to the nature of weapons with which they were armed;
and in fact there was no evidence to show that the appellants therein had any
_, weapon with them or caused any hurt to anybody. A large number of persons
were involved. In the aforementioned situation, this Court found that the
H
object of the mob was to teach the deceased a lesson who was a bully in the
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A village and only in that situation an inference was drawn that the common
object was to commit offences under Section 323 and 325 and not under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

38. The said decision have no application to the facts of the present
case.
B
39. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.