Patna High Court
Deo Nandan Noniya & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2014
Author: Vikash Jain
Bench: Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.1084 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 1087 OF 2013
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 40 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, DATED 27TH
NOVEMBER, 2013 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE, DATED 30TH
NOVEMBER, 2013, PASSED BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH, AD HOC
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE V, GAYA, IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO.
422 OF 2003/21 OF 2012, ARISING OUT OF MUFFASIL POLICE
STATION CASE NO. 100 OF 2002
1. MUNNI NONIYA, SON OF LAXMAN NONIYA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - GAYA
2. NANHE NONIYA, SON OF LAXMAN NONIYA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - GAYA
3. RAM CHANDRA NONIYA, SON OF LATE BANGALI NONIYA,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, PS.- MUFFASIL,
DISTRICT - GAYA
4. BUTAI NONIYA, SON OF DASAI NONIYA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - GAYA
5. DASAI NONIYA, SON OF LATE BANGALI NONIYA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - GAYA
.... APPELLANTS (IN CR. APP. (DB) NO. 1084/2013)
WITH
1. DEO NANDAN NONIYA, SON OF SARYUG NONIYA @ SARJU
NONIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, P.S.
MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - GAYA
2. SARYUG NONIYA @ SARJU NONIYA, SON OF LATE BASUDEO
NONIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARKI NEEMA, P.S.
MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - GAYA
....APPELLANTS (IN CR. APP. (DB) NO. 1087/2013)
WITH
1. BHOLA PASWAN, SON OF LATE CHAMARI PASWAN, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE- BARKI NIMA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- GAYA
(BIHAR)
....APPELLANTS (IN CR. APP. (DB) NO. 40/2014)
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR .... RESPONDENT (IN ALL APPEALS)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 2
===========================================================
APPEARANCE :
(IN ALL APPEALS)
FOR THE APPELLANTS: MR. SANJAY KUMAR NO. 1, ADVOCATE
MR. MADHUSUDAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE
MR. BIRENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE
MR. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE
FOR THE STATE : MR. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, A.P.P.
MR. S. C. MISHRA, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)
Date: 07 -05-2014
I. A. Ansari, J.: Under challenge, in the present appeals, is the
judgment, dated 27.11.2013, of conviction, in Sessions Trial
No. 422 of 2003/21 of 2012, by the learned Ad hoc Additional
Sessions Judge V, Gaya, and the order, dated 30.11.2013,
whereby various sentences have been passed against the
accused-appellants.
2. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court
has convicted all the accused-appellants, except accused-
appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court
has convicted the accused-appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya,
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For their
conviction, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, all the accused-appellants, except Deo
Nandan Noniya, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 3
payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
For his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
the accused-appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.
20,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple
imprisonment for six months.
3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at
the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under:
(i) Deceased Butai Noniya was the husband of
Rukmani Devi (PW 1). While Rukmani Noniya (PW 1) used to
work in a brick-kiln, her husband, Butai Noniya, used to work
outside their village because they have no cultivable land. Both
of them used to reside in a one room house.
(ii) On 18.07.2002, at about 9:00 PM, accused
Bhola Paswan, Ayodhya Noniya, Sarju Noniya, Deo Nandan
Noniya, Ram Chandar Noniya, Dasai Noniya, Nanhe Noniya,
Munni Noniya and Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya, entered into the
house of Butai Noniya and began to drag his wife, Rukmani
Devi (PW 1), outside her house. As she began to shout, her
husband, Butai Noniya, came forward to rescue her. At that
moment, on being exhorted by accused Sarju Noniya, accused
Deo Nandan Noniya fired from his fire-arm. Having sustained a
bullet injury on his abdominal region, Butai Noniya fell down on
the ground and died at the spot. Thereafter, the other
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 4
associates of accused Deo Nandan Noniya began assaulting
others, who had assembled at the place of occurrence on
hearing hulla raised from the house of the said deceased.
Amongst the people, who had so come, was present Butai
Noniya‟s brother, Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2).
(iii) From the place of occurrence, Butai Noniya
was carried to a hospital called „Pilgrim Hospital‟, where the
doctor declared him dead.
(iv) On receiving the information about the
occurrence, police arrived at the place of occurrence, on
18.07.2002, at about 11:15 PM, and recorded the information given by Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2), about the occurrence, in the form of fardbayan.
(v) Treating the said fardbayan (Exhibit-1) as First Information Report, Mufassil Police Station Case No. 100 of 2002 was registered under Sections 147/148/ 149/458/341/342/114/323/324/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against all the nine accused persons, namely, (i) Bhola Paswan, (ii) Ayodhya Noniya, (iii) Sarju Noniya, (iv) Deo Nandan Noniya,
(v) Ram Chandar Noniya, (vi) Dasai Noniya, (vii) Nanhe Noniya, (viii) Munni Noniya and (ix) Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya.
(vi) During investigation, inquest was held over Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 5 the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination, and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused persons, namely, (i) Bhola Paswan,
(ii) Ayodhya Noniya, (iii) Sarju Noniya, (iv) Deo Nandan Noniya, (v) Ram Chandar Noniya, (vi) Dasai Noniya, (vii) Nanhe Noniya, (viii) Munni Noniya and (ix) Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya, under Sections 147/148/149/458/341/342/114/323/ 324/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. At the stage of framing of charges, accused Ayodhya Noniya absconded and his case was, therefore, split up and separated. Consequently, remaining eight accused persons were put on trial.
5. At the trial, when charges, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, were framed against accused Deo Nandan Noniya, he pleaded not guilty thereto. As against 7 (seven) others, when a charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed, they all pleaded not guilty thereto. In addition thereto, when a charge, under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against all the 8 (eight) accused persons, they all pleaded not guilty to the charge so framed too.
6. In support of their case, prosecution examined Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 6 altogether seven witnesses. The accused persons were, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in their examinations aforementioned, the accused persons denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that all the accused persons were innocent and that it was Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2), who had fired from a fire-arm at accused Deo Nandan Noniya, but the bullet missed Deo Nandan Noniya and hit his brother, Butai Noniya, and, in consequence thereof, Butai Noniya died. No evidence was adduced by the defence.
7. Having, however, arrived at the finding that accused Deo Nandan Noniya had been proved guilty of the charges framed against him, as has been pointed out, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly. The learned trial Court did not record its finding on the charge framed, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against accused Deo Nandan Noniya.
8. As far as the remaining 7 (seven) accused are concerned, namely, Bhola Paswan, Sarju Noniya, Ram Chandar Noniya, Dasai Noniya, Nanhe Noniya, Munni Noniya and Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya, they have been found guilty and accordingly convicted by learned trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Following their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 7 conviction, sentences, as mentioned above, have been passed against the convicted persons.
9. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, all the accused, as convicted persons, have preferred appeals.
10. All these three appeals having arisen out of the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 27.11.2013, and the impugned order of sentence, dated 30.11.2013, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
11. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 1, Mr. Madhusudan Kumar and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, and Mr. S. C. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
12. While considering the present appeals, it needs to be noted that Rukmani Devi (PW 1), widow of the said deceased, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 9 O‟clock, when she was in her house with her husband, Butai Noniya (since deceased), accused persons, namely, Bhola Paswan, Ayodhya Noniya, Sarju Noniya, Deo Nandan Noniya, Ram Chandar Noniya, Dasai Noniya, Nanhe Noniya, Munni Noniya and Butai Nonia @ Buta Noniya, all nine in number, entered into her house and began to drag her outside the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 8 house and when she began shouting, her husband came forward to get her freed and, at that moment, accused Deo Nandan Noniya, on being exhorted by accused Sarju Noniya, fired at her husband, who died at the spot, and, then, accused Sarju Noniya, Ram Chandra Noniya, Buta Noniya, carrying lathi, accused Dasai Noniya, who were carrying garasa (sharp- edged weapon) and Ajodhya Noniya who was also carrying garasa, assaulted her nanad (her husband‟s younger sister), her bhaisur (her husband‟s elder brother) and one Parmeshwar Nonia, and, in consequence of these assaults, all of them sustained injuries.
13. It needs to be carefully noted that the defence cross-examined PW 1 at length, but was unable to shake her evidence. In fact, her entire evidence has, admittedly, remained unshaken and cannot, therefore, be ignored.
14. In her cross-examination, PW 1 has clarified that she used to reside with her husband in a room and while she was sitting with her husband on the threshold of her room, accused persons entered into her house and that there was no other person inside the said room at the time, when the accused persons had so entered into her room. She has also clarified, in her cross-examination, that her husband caught hold of her in order to save her and while the accused persons Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 9 were dragging her by holding her right hand, her husband was dragging her by catching her left hand and it was at that point of time that her husband had been shot at and her husband just slumped to the ground on having sustained bullet injury.
15. It is in the evidence of PW 1 that blood had started flowing from the wound of her husband and had fallen even on her saree and that she had not noticed if anyone from her neighbourhood had come there.
16. In fact, PW 1 has deposed, in her cross-
examination, that she does not know who did what after her husband had sustained bullet injury as she had fallen unconscious on seeing her husband dead and regained her senses after about half-an-hour and that police came to her house at 2:00 AM and that she had shown to the police the blood-stained saree. She has further deposed that after her husband fell down, she was not in the right frame of mind. She has also clarified that she was not wearing bangles in the night of the occurrence.
17. From the unshaken evidence of PW 1, what clearly emerges unscathed is that the occurrence took place inside her house, when accused persons aforementioned entered into her one room house and began to drag her outside the house, and when they were doing so, she cried out and her husband went forward to save her by catching hold of her left Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 10 hand and tried to pull her towards his side, while the accused persons were dragging her by catching hold of her right hand and, at that point of time, accused Deo Nandan Noniya, on being exhorted by Sarju Noniya, shot her husband, who slumped to the ground, blood came out of his wound and some blood also fell even on her saree, which she showed to the police.
18. Nothing could be elicited, as already indicated above, from the evidence of PW 1 to show that what she had deposed was untrue or false. Not only her evidence remained unscathed, but it also clearly emerges from her evidence that the occurrence took place inside the house, where her presence was natural and so was the presence of her husband.
19. What has also emerged unassailed from the evidence of PW 1 is that none other than the accused persons, she and her husband were present inside the room, where the occurrence had taken place. Hence, the question of anyone else having witnessed the said occurrence does not, in the light of the above evidence, arise at all.
20. Having remained unshaken, as already indicated above, the evidence of PW 1 inspires great confidence.
21. In the backdrop of the evidence of PW 1, when we turn to the evidence of the doctor (PW 5), who had, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 11 admittedly, conducted post mortem examination, on 19.07.2002, at about 01:15 PM, on the dead body of Butai Noniya, we notice that the doctor (PW 5) found following ante mortem injuries:
(i) entry wound with tattooing and abrasion of ¾" x ½" x abdominal cavity deep and adjoining part of left 7th rib was found fractured and dislocated. Track of wound was directed below posteriorly and to the left and was traced upto left kidney which was found lacerated. Despite all efforts, no bullet or pellet was found, the radiological facility is not available. Hence, radiography could not be taken. Abdominal cavity was found full of blood. Few coils of intestine along with part of stomach near pylorus were lacerated. One dead roundworm was found in the abdominal cavity."
22. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 5), the shock and haemorrhage, which resulted from the injury sustained by the said deceased on his abdomen by the fire-arm, became the cause of his death.
23. Thus, the ocular evidence of PW 1 that her husband had been shot dead is confirmed by the evidence of the doctor (PW 5), whose findings or opinion have neither been disputed by the defence nor do we see any reason to discard or disbelieve his findings and/or his opinion with regard to the cause of death and the nature of the weapon used. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 12
24. Though a suggestion has been offered to PW1 by the defence that it was Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2), who had shot her husband, Butai Noniya, dead, this suggestion remained as a mere suggestion inasmuch as no further question was asked by the defence, when PW 1 denied the truthfulness of the said suggestion. This apart, the defence could not shake the evidence given by PW 1 that when her husband, Butai Noniya, was shot to death, she was the only one present inside her house, in addition to, of course, the assailants. Logically extended, this would mean that Butai Noniya could not have been killed on being shot by Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2), when he was not present inside the room, at the time when the occurrence had taken place.
25. What, now, needs to be pointed out is that Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2) was examined and he was cross- examined by the defence on two dates; but the defence did not conclude his cross-examination and his cross-examination remained, thus, incomplete.
26. On the above aspect of the case, learned trial Court‟s observations are pertinent and same are, therefore, re- produced below:
"Being eye-witness, PW 1 has fully
supported the prosecution case whose
version is further corroborated by PW 2. It is contended that the defence has extensively cross-examined PW 2, but did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 13 not gathered anything favourable to his cause. It is apparent from the records that the defence was adamant to harass this witness by seeking adjournment on several dates. On five dates continuously, PW 2 was present, nevertheless the defence failed to cross-examine further for the reason best known to him. So, no adverse view should be drawn against the prosecution for the fault of the defence. It further submitted that the medical evidence also shows that the deceased received bullet injury which resulted in his death."
27. Bearing in mind the above observations made by the learned trial Court with regard to the harassment, which PW 2 underwent at the hands of the defence, and the fact that he (PW 2) did not turn up for further cross-examination after his cross-examination was repeatedly adjourned on the prayer of the defence, it needs to be pointed out that it has been contended, at the time of hearing, in the present appeals, that PW 2 was not made available to the defence for his cross- examination. True it is that the evidence of PW 2 remained incomplete due to his non-cross-examination.
28. What, however, remains imperative to remember are the observations of the learned trial Court to the effect that the cross-examination of PW 2 had been adjourned on several dates and, on five continuous dates, PW 2 was present for cross-examination, but the defence failed to cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 14 examine him for the reasons best known to them. These observations of the learned trial Court have not been assailed, before this Court, in appeals.
29. Had the learned trial Court closed further cross-examination of PW 2, we would have felt no impediment, in law, in appreciating the evidence of PW 2 for determining if his evidence was reliable and trustworthy. However, as the learned trial Court did not close his cross-examination, we are clearly of the view that his evidence, having not been fully and completely tested by cross-examination from the end of the defence, could not have been used or relied upon by the learned trial Court.
30. Even if, however, the evidence of PW 2 is kept out of the purview of our consideration, which we ought to do, there is no hesitation in our minds that as far as PW 1 is concerned, her evidence has remained unshaken and her evidence, having been fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record, can be safely relied upon.
31. Coming to the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4, we find that both these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution except to the extent that Butai Noniya had died.
32. So far as the evidence of PW 6 and PW 7 are concerned, both of them have given, as noted by the learned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 15 trial Court, a parrot like description of the occurrence, their evidence being to the effect that Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2) had fired at Deo Nandan Noniya, but the bullet hit Butai Noniya, who died. What is also significant to note, in the evidence of PW 6 and PW 7, is that according to them, the occurrence had taken place around 5:00-6:00 PM; whereas the evidence of PW 1 is that the occurrence had taken place at about 9:00 PM and this assertion of PW 1, while she was being cross-examined by the defence, had not been disputed.
33. In the face of the above undisputed and unshaken evidence of PW 1, no credence can be given to the evidence of PW 6 and PW 7 that the occurrence had taken place at about 5:00-6:00 PM. This apart, we have pointed out that from the unshaken evidence of PW 1, it is very precise and specific that at the time, when her husband was shot dead, except she, her husband and the accused persons, none else was present in the room where her husband was shot at.
34. In other words, it is the clear and specific evidence of PW 1 that the occurrence took place at about 9 O‟clock at night. This assertion of PW 1 has not been disputed. There is, therefore, no reason for us to disbelieve her as regards the time of occurrence and this shows that as far as PW 6 and PW 7 are concerned, they have falsely described the occurrence to have taken place between 5:00 and 6:00 PM Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 16 and, hence, they shall be treated as witnesses, who had not seen the occurrence at all.
35. Coupled with the above, while cross-
examining PW 1, it had not been suggested to her by the defence that PW 6 and PW 7 were present at the time, when Lal Mohan Noniya (PW 2) had, by accident, shot his brother, Butai Noniya, who died. This re-affirms our inference that PW 6 and PW 7 are not at all reliable witnesses.
36. Notwithstanding the infirmity with which suffers the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the Investigating Officer has not been examined, those who had been injured at the place of occurrence have not been examined nor was brought, as a witness, to the trial, the doctor, who had examined the said injured, the fact remains that no particular number of witness is necessary either for proving or disproving a fact.
37. Consequently, the testimony of a single witness is, if believed, sufficient to prove a fact. Admittedly, being an eye-witness to the occurrence, PW 1 has given clear and cogent evidence implicating accused Deo Nandan Noniya as a person, who had shot dead her husband, Butai Noniya. The tenor of her evidence is simple, natural, consistent and coherent. Her evidence, having remained completely unshaken in cross-examination and having been corroborated by the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 17 medical evidence on record, inspires great confidence of this Court.
38. Now, in the present case there are two sets of evidence available on record, one in favour of the prosecution, as given by PW 1, and the other, in favour of the defence, as given by PW 6 and PW 7. In these circumstances the defence should, ordinarily, be given the benefit of such inconsistent version of the occurrence presented before the Court. This, of course, is a very easy course, which can be adopted by any trial Court. The learned trial Judge, in the present case, has done well in determining as to which one, between the two sets of evidence, can be believed; whether it is PW 1, who has to be believed, or the evidence of PW 6 and PW 7 needed to be believed. The learned trial Court has, however, believed, for good reasons, the evidence of PW 1. Though the learned trial Court has, while relying on the evidence of PW 1, has used the evidence of PW 2 as corroborative evidence, the fact remains that even if the evidence of PW 2 is kept excluded from the purview of our consideration, which we must do, unassailed and unshaken evidence of PW 1 can be wholly relied upon.
39. In the circumstances as indicated above, the evidence of PW 2, as we have already observed above, ought to have been kept excluded from the purview of the learned trial Court‟s consideration. However, even if the evidence of PW Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 18 2 is kept excluded from consideration, the fact of the matter remains that apart from the fact that the evidence of PW 1 has remained unshaken and inspires great confidence, there is no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused persons, while letting the real killer of her husband, i.e. PW 2, go scot free, if PW 2 was the real killer, particularly, when no collusion is alleged to have existed between PW 1 and PW 2.
40. In the face of facts of the present case, there can be no doubt that as far as the appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, is concerned, he has been well proved to have intentionally caused death of Butai Noniya by shooting him from a fire-arm inasmuch as everyone is presumed to intend the consequences of his act and, in the case at hand, the appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, too, ought to be presumed to intend the consequences of shooting and it has, therefore, been rightly inferred by the learned trial Court that having intentionally caused death of Butai Noniya, Deo Nandan Noniya had committed offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
41. However, determination of the role, as a whole, played by the other appellants, in the entire occurrence leading to the death of Butai Noniya, now, becomes imperative.
42. While determining the question as to what offence, if any, the remaining accused-appellants had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 19 committed, we reiterate, in the light of what we have discussed above, that we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 1 and if her evidence is believed, which we see no reason to disbelieve, we have no hesitation in holding, and we do hold, that the evidence on record proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that accused-appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, had intentionally caused death of Butai Noniya by shooting him from a fire-arm and killing him on the spot. The conviction of the accused- appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, does not, therefore, call for any interference and his appeal needs to be dismissed.
43. What, now, needs to be noted is that a charge was framed against the remaining 7 (seven) accused- appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they have all been convicted in accordance with the charge so framed. The question is:
whether in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the remaining 7 (seven) appellants could have been legally convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
44. While considering the question posed above, it needs to be borne in mind that when a person is sought to be convicted by taking aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, it is the duty of the Court to determine what the common object of the unlawful assembly was and if the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 20 formation of the assembly with such a common object can be regarded as unlawful, then, for the offence, which is committed in prosecution of the common object, every one of such an assembly shall be vicariously liable.
45. A bare reading of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code shows that the offence, which is committed in prosecution of a common object of an unlawful assembly, need not necessarily fall within the common object with which the unlawful assembly was formed. This apart, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also makes a person liable for the offence committed by an unlawful assembly, which he was a member of, if he knew such offence „to be likely to be committed‟ in prosecution of the common object, meaning thereby that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, which offence did not form part of the common object, a member of the assembly would still be vicariously liable for the offence committed if he knew that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, which he was a member of.
WHAT IS A COMMON OBJECT:-
46. The word 'object', as it appears in Section 141 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, means the purpose or design and, in order to make it 'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 21 to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of the object and must concur with the object.
47. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation; but this is, by no means, necessary. The common object may be formed, at any stage, by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, the common object need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage.
48. The expression 'in prosecution of common object', appearing in Section 149, has to be strictly construed as equivalent to 'in order to attain the common object'. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage and not necessarily thereafter.
49. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' inasmuch as a „common object‟ does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object.
50. The 'common object' of an assembly is to be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 22 ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. The common object may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly.
51. What the common object of an unlawful assembly was, at a particular stage of the incident, is essentially a question of fact to be determined keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the occurrence.
52. It is not necessary under the law that in all cases of unlawful assembly formed with an unlawful common object, the common object must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, an assembly, which was not unlawful, when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one, comes into existence at the onset. Quiet clearly, therefore, an assembly, which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful.
53. In other words, common object can develop during the course of incident at the spoteo instanti.
54. Hence, the common object of an unlawful Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 23 assembly, in every given case, depends, first, on the question whether such object can be classified as one of those described in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly, such a common object need not be the product of prior concert; but, as per established law, may form on the spur of the moment.
55. Even if the offence committed is not directly in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, it may still fall under second part of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'knew' does not mean a mere possibility, such as, might or might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons, variously armed with deadly weapons, go to take forcible possession of a land, it would be correct to infer that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware thereof and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
56. The observations, made by the Supreme Court, in Charan Singh v. State of ..... (2004) 4 SCC 205, are, in this regard, worth reading and, therefore, quoted below:
" „Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 24 minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The 'common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful.
Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 25 subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spoteo instanti. Hence, the common object of the unlawful assembly in question depends firstly on whether such object can be classified as one of those described in Section 141 of the IPC. Secondly, such common object need not be the product of prior concert but, as per established law, may form on the spur of the moment.
Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to say that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149 IPC."
(Emphasis is supplied)
57. In Alauddin Mian V. State of Bihar [AIR 1989 SC1456], explaining the import of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has observed that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 26 this Section (149 IPC) creates constructive liability and makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence or offences committed in the course of the occurrence provided that the same was/were committed in prosecution of the common object or was / were such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Since Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code imposes a constructive penal liability, it must be strictly construed inasmuch as it seeks to punish members of an unlawful assembly for the offence or offences committed by their associate or associates in carrying out the common object of the assembly. What is important, in each case, is to find out if the offence was committed. There must be a nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object, every member of the assembly will become liable for the same.
58. Any offence, therefore, committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of anyone or more of the five objects, mentioned in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, will render his companions, constituting the unlawful assembly, liable for that offence with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not the intention of the legislature, in enacting Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to render every member of an unlawful assembly liable Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 27 to punishment for every offence committed by one or more of its members.
59. In order to invoke Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code , it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly. Even if an act, incidental to the common object, is committed to accomplish the common object of an unlawful assembly, the doing of the act must be treated to have been within the knowledge of the other members as the act likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. If the members of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being committed in prosecution of the common object, they all would be liable for the commission of the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
60. However, once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons, forming the unlawful assembly, must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability under the provisions of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the liability of the other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed, during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 28 common object.
61. The relevant observations, appearing in Alauddin Mian (supra), read as under:-
"...:.......This section creates a specific offence and makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence or offences committed in the course of the occurrence provided the same was / were committed in prosecution of the common object or was / were such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Since this section imposes a constructive penal liability, it must be safely construed as it seeks to punish members of an unlawful assembly for the offence or offences committed by their associate or associates in carrying out the common object of the assembly. What is important in each case is to find out if the offence was committed. There must be a nexus between the common object and the offence committed and if it is found that the same was committed to accomplish the common object every member of the assembly will become liable for the same. Therefore, any offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of anyone or more of the five objects mentioned in Section 141 will render his companions constituting the unlawful assembly liable for that offence with the aid of Section 149, it is not the intention of the legislature in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 29 enacting Section 149 to render every member of an unlawful assembly liable to punishment for every offence committed by one or more of its members. In order to invoke Section 149 it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly. Even if an act incidental to the common object is committed to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly, it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object: If the members of the assembly knew or were aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being committed in prosecution of the common object, they would be liable for the same under Section 149." However, once it is established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability under the provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object."
(Emphasis is added) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 30 CONSTRUCTIVE LIABILITY ― WHO CAN BE FASTENED WITH :-
62. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code creates a constructive or vicarious liability on the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. The basis of the constructive guilt, under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is mere membership of the unlawful assembly with the requisite common object. While overt act and active participation may indicate common object of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence, in the unlawful assembly, may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
63. There are two essential ingredients of Section 149, viz., (1) commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and (2) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. Once the court finds that these two ingredients are fulfilled, every person, who, at the time of committing an offence, was a member of the assembly, has to be held guilty of that offence.
64. After such a finding, as the one indicated above, it would not be open to the Court to see as to who Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 31 actually did the offensive act nor it would be open to the Court to require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts. Whenever a Court convicts any person of an offence with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, a clear finding, regarding the common object of the assembly, must be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object, but that in pursuance of such common object, the offence was committed. There is no manner of doubt that before recording conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code must be established.(See Daya Kishan v. State of Haryana, (2010) 5 SCC 81).
65. What logically follows from the above discussion is that once membership of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not incumbent, on the prosecution, to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to any accused or not. Mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in prosecution of common object or an offence, which a member of the assembly knew was likely to be committed.
66. In Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [AIR 1965 SC 202], it was held by the Supreme Court that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 32 crucial question for determination, in a case being prosecuted with aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects specified by Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons, who were merely passive witnesses and/or had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.
67. Again, in K.M. Ravi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, [(2009) 16 SC 337], the Supreme Court has clarified that mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to commit the offending act or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act.
68. Further, in Amerika Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [(2011) 4 SCC 677], the Supreme Court has opined that in order to make a member of an unlawful assembly, having common object, liable, what is to be determined is as to whether there was any active participation and the presence of all the accused persons was with an active mind in furtherance Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 33 of their common object. The law of vicarious liability, under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is crystal clear that even the presence, in an unlawful assembly, of a person with an active mind to achieve the common object, makes such a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.
69. In the present case, in the light of the evidence of PW 1, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the appellants, variously armed, had entered into the house of Butai Noniya and started pulling his wife (PW 1) away. Their act showed that they were trying to forcibly take away PW 1 and since they were all armed so much so that the appellant, Deo Nandan Noniya, was armed with a fire-arm, each member of the assembly knew that if resistance was offered to the taking away of PW 1, then, the arms, which they were carrying, including the fire-arm, in question, was likely to be used.
70. In such a case, as indicated above, when Deo Nandan Noniya shot to death Butai Noniya, it logically followed that each member of the unlawful assembly, which was formed, knew that it was likely that murder would be committed by intentionally causing injury to the person, who offered resistance to the taking away of PW 1; more so, when the arm was not being carried for demonstration, but, in the light of the evidence on record, for the purpose of using it if Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 34 required.
71. The evidence of PW 1, when microscopically analysed, in order to ascertain whether the accused persons, together with each other, can be said to have constituted unlawful assembly and, accordingly, were members thereof, leads to the emergence of the following facts:
(i) That Sarju Noniya exhorted Deo
Nandan Noniya to fire at Butai Noniya;
(ii) That Sarju Noniya and Ram
Chandra Noniya were carrying lathis;
(iii) That accused Dasai Noniya and
Ayodhya Noniya were carrying garasa,
which is a sharp edged deadly weapon; and
(iv) That accused Bhola Paswan,
Nanhe Noniya and Munni Noniya were
present at the time of occurrence and were companions of the other accused in entering into the house of PW 1 (Rukmini Devi) at about 9 O‟clock at night.
72. As held in the case of Charan Singh (supra), the 'common object' of the assembly has to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 35 members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.
73. In the circumstances indicated above, every member of the unlawful assembly, which was formed in the present case, knew that murder was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object with which the assembly was formed and, in such circumstances, when murder has been committed, every member of the unlawful assembly would be held vicariously liable for the offence so committed. The very act of entering into somebody‟s house is an overt act and when the members of an unlawful assembly enter into somebody‟s house carrying various arms, including fire-arms, there can be no two opinions that in such a case, if required, fire-arm would be used. The entering into the house is an overt act, which is further fortified by carrying of arms irrespective of the fact whether all the arms have or have not been used inasmuch as it is not necessary that every member of the unlawful assembly must use the arm in order to be held responsible for the commission of offence of murder.
74. It may be pointed out that the case of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 36 prosecution suffers from an infirmity, the infirmity being that the First Information Report has remained unproved. Peculiar though it may be, yet it is not necessary, in every case, that the contents of the First Information Report must be brought on record. So long as the evidence, adduced, as a whole, by the prosecution, at a trial, successfully helps the prosecution bring home a charge, the fact that the First Information Report has not been proved, in accordance with law, would not make the Court ipso facto hold the accused not guilty.
75. So far as the charges, other than the charge framed, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, against remaining accused-appellants are concerned, considering the fact that the injured have not been examined, the doctor, who had examined the injured at the hospital, has not been produced and examined in the Court, the injury reports have not been proved and when PW 1 has herself deposed that having seen her husband slumping to the ground on being shot at and dying, she became unconscious, we are of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, all the accused-appellants deserved to be given benefit of doubt and have been acquitted accordingly of the offence allegedly committed by them under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
76. In the result and for the reasons discussed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1084 of 2013 dt.07-05-2014 37 above, the impugned conviction of the appellants and the sentences passed against them by the judgment and order, under appeal, are hereby upheld and the appeals are hereby dismissed.
77. Send back the lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgment and order.
(I. A. Ansari, J.) VIKASH JAIN, J.:I agree Prabhakar Anand/-
(VIKASH JAIN, J.) AFR __ |__| U |__| T