Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs State Of M.P. on 11 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Shailendra Shukla, Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
T H E H I G H C O U R T O F MAD H YA PRAD E S H
B E N C H AT I N D O R E
[DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, JJ.]
Criminal Appeal No.990/2006
Dinesh S/o Balchand,
Age-20 years, Occupation- Labour
R/o- 47, Kesharbag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.1
Manoj S/o Tarachand,
Age-30 years, Occupation- Labour
R/o-4/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.2
Tarachand S/o-Babulal,
Age-58 years, Occupation- Veg. seller
R/o-4/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.3
Smt. Laxmibai W/o-Tarachand,
Age-42 years, Occupation- Housewife
R/o-4/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.4
Narendra S/o Kishorilal,
Age-28 years, Occupation- Veg. seller
R/o-153/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.5
Kamal S/o Kishorilal,
Age-25 years, Occupation- Veg. seller
R/o-153/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.6
Ravi S/o Tarachand,
Age-27 years, Occupation- Veg. seller
R/o-163/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.7
Rakesh S/o Tarachand,
Age-22 years, Occupation- Veg. seller
R/o-4/1 Chhatribhag, Indore (M.P.)
.........Appellant No.8
Versus
State of M.P.
Through Police Station Pandrinath,
Indore (M.P.)
............Respondent
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar learned senior counsel with Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned
counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(Heard on 25/10/2021) (Delivered on 11/11/2021) PER VIVEK RUSIA, J:-
The appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 01.09.2006 passed by the learned 15th Additional Session Judge,
- : 2 :-
Indore, in S.T. No.133/2005 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of appellant Section Punishment Fine/in default
294 of IPC 3 months
Dinesh 148 of IPC 3 years
302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000 / 5
years Addl. R.I.
323/149 of IPC (2 1-1 years R.I.
counts)
324 of IPC 3 years R.I.
25(1-B) of Arms 3 years R.I. Rs. 2,000 / 5
act months Addl. R.I.
Manoj, Smt. 294 of IPC 3 months
Laxmibai, 147 of IPC 2 years R.I.
Narendra, Kamal,
Rakesh and Ravi 302/149 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs. 10,000 / 5
(appellant no. 2 to years Addl. R.I.
8) 323/149 of IPC (2 1-1 years R.I.
counts)
The appellants have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000 to the legal heirs of deceased Arjun and Rs.2,000- Rs.2,000 to Chandrakant, Vijay and Gauri@ Gaurav.
2. The prosecution story of this case in short is as under:-
(i) On 15.01.2005 at 15:15 hrs. injured Gauri@ Gaurav (P.W.-11) came to his house for taking meals. His friends Arjun(deceased), Chandrakant and Neelesh (Injured) were standing near the crossing and later on, Gauri also joined them. At that time Kamal (A-6) came there and asked why they are standing here and started abusing them, the deceased Arjun objected Kamal (A-6) and at that time Dinesh (A-1) asked who is Arjun, Arjun introduced himself, Dinesh abused him with filthy language and had scuffled with him. Gauri (P.W.-11 )and friends intervened, Dinesh (A-1) ran away to the house of Manoj (A-2) thereafter, Gauri and his friend went to Satya Narayan temple and sat on a wooden bench. After 2-3 minutes Manoj (A-2), Ravi (A-7), Rakesh (A-
8), Tarachand (A-3), Laxmibai (A-4), Kamal (A-6) and Dinesh (A-1) came there. Manoj was wielding hockey, Dinesh wielding Chakku (knife), Ravi and Rakesh were carrying bottles. All of them came there with a common intention to kill them. Dinesh with an intention to kill has
- : 3 :-
tried to inflict an injury to Arjun which was taken by Gauri@ Gaurav in his hand and he sustained stab injury, then Smt. Laxmibai caught hold Gaouri and Dinesh stabbed the knife on the chest of Arjun and he fell down. Chandrakant tried to run away then Manoj gave a blow by means of a stick on his head. Ravi and Rakesh have started throwing the bottles due to which Tarachand (A-3) and Laxmibai (A-4) sustained injuries, thereafter, they all ran away.
(ii) Gauri@ Gaurav took Arjun and Chandrakant to the police station and lodged FIR Exhibit-P/12. They were sent to the govt hospital for medical examination. Dr. Rashmi Chouhan P.W.-1 examined Chandrakant and found two lacerated wounds one on the right hand and leg frontal region simple in nature Exhibit-P/2. Gauri@ Gaurav was also medically examined, who sustained injuries vide Exhibit-P/26. Arjun succumbed to the injuries on 16.01.2005. Postmortem was carried out by Dr. N.M. Unda opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhagic as a result of stab injury to the chest and the death is homicidal in nature.
(iii) Initially, FIR was registered at crime no.7/2005 under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506 of the IPC at police station Pandrinath, Indore (M.P.). After the death of Arjun on 16.01.2005 offence of Section 302 of the IPC was also added. The police reached the spot and prepared a spot map (Exhibit-P/30) thereafter arrested all the accused persons.
Vide Exhibit-P/7 and P/8 Smt. Laxmibai and Tarchand were arrested and they were medically examined and both were found with lacerated wounds caused by a hard and blunt object. From the possession of Dinesh (A-1) knife was recovered containing bloodstain vide seizure memo Exhibit-P/21. From the possession of Manoj (A-2) hockey 36-inch long wooden stick was recovered and seized vide seizure memo Exhibit- P/22. Dry Blood droplets were recovered from the spot vide Exhibit- P/13. Bloodstain clothes were recovered vide Exhibit-P/14 and Exhibit- P/23.All the seized articles were sent to FSL vide draft letter dated 23.02.2005 Exhibit-P/31. FSL submitted a report dated 09.12.2005 Exhibit-P/32 and according to which human blood was found mainly on Article-D knife recovered from Dinesh (A-1) and Article-G hockey stick
- : 4 :-
recovered from Manoj (A-2). Police recorded the statement of witnesses and eye-witnesses and others.
(iv) Upon completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and the trial was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge framed the charges against all the accused persons which they denied and pleaded for trial. Accordingly, the prosecution was called upon to examine the witnesses. The prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and Exhibited 32 documents. In defense appellants did not examine any witnesses but got exhibited 7 documents as Exhibited D-1 to D-7. After evaluating the evidence came on record Addl. Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants are stated above. Hence the present appeal before this Court.
3. Except Dinesh (A-1) all the appellants are on bail by way of suspension of the jail sentence by this court.
4. At the very outset Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned senior counsel submitted that so far as the appellant-Dinesh is concerned he has undergone the actual jail sentence of 16 years, against whom there is a specific allegation of causing two stabs injuries to the deceased-Arjun, therefore, he is not assailing the order on merit as he would be discharged after undergoing 14 years of the jail sentence. But so far, the other appellants No. 2 to 7 are concerned they have wrongly been convicted under section 302 of the IPC with the aid of section 149 of the IPC. Shri Sirpurkar learned senior counsel has submitted that once appellants No. 2 to 7 have not been charged and convicted under section 148 of the IPC then, they are not liable to be convicted under section 302 of the IPC with the aid of section 149 of the IPC. They are facing the agony of trial for the last 16 years. They are all members of one family and all have been falsely implicated by the police by using section 149 I.P.C in absence of the common object. The prosecution has failed to establish the common object to form unlawful assembly for committing an offence During this 16 years period they were on bail and they have never misused the liberty of bail, therefore, it would be very harsh for sending them to jail at this stage when they have a family to support hence, this criminal appeal may
- : 5 :-
kindly be allowed at least for them.
5. Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Govt advocate for the respondent/state has refuted the above arguments by submitting that section 148 of the IPC and Section 149 of the IPC both are independent provisions. Dinesh was carrying a knife hence he alone has been under section 148 of the IPC, and the rest of the accused have been convicted under section 147 of I.P.C. All the appellants have rightly been convicted under section 302 with the aid of section 149 of the IPC because admittedly they came to the spot with a common object, even some of them did not assault or cause injuries even then they have rightly been convicted under section 302 with the aid of section 149 of the IPC because Arjun died due to the injuries caused by Dinesh (A-1) The prosecution has successfully established common object between the appellants to murder Arjun hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Since the appellants are not assailing the findings recorded by the learned Additional Session Judge about the death of Arjun as homicidal death and the nature of injuries sustained by the other two Gauri@ Gaurav and Chandrakant therefore, there is no need to re-appreciate the same. Hence, we accordingly affirm the same.
7. Shri Sirpurkar learned senior counsel has also raised an important issue that the merg No.09/04 (Exhibit-P/4) was recorded on 15.01.2005 at 16:05 hrs. after the death of Arjun. Nothing has been recorded about the nature of injuries and the name of accused persons in it because according to the prosecution the FIR had already been registered. It means the FIR is an antedated document registered only to show the presence and involvement of appellant no.2 to 8 on the spot to implicate them with the aid of section 148 of the IPC. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeevan & anr. State of Kerala reported in 2003 CRI. L.J.1572=AIR 2003 SC 1813 in which it has been held that non- mentioning of the name of assailants to the doctor who examined the
- : 6 :-
deceased and the injured witnesses is another circumstance against prosecution and the possibility of the implication of accused persons as a result of afterthought cannot be ruled out. The aforesaid merg was recorded at 16:05 hrs. on 15.01.2005. As per the FIR the incident took place on 15.01.2005 at 15:15 hrs. and information was given to the police station by Gauri @ Gaurav at 15:30 hrs. which was recorded under section 307 of the IPC apart from other offences thereafter, all the injured witnesses were examined. According to Ramdas Ghate (P.W.-2), police station Pandrinath received information through the telephone operator of M.Y. Hospital, Indore at 16:25 hrs. that the dead body of Arjun has been brought to M.Y. Hospital, Indore at 16:05, which was registered at Merg No.01-2005. A specific question was put to P.K. Sharma, an investigating officer (P.W.-16) that 15.01.2005 the FIR was not in existence therefore, Tarachand (A-3) and Laxmibai(A-4) were not arrested. In cross-examination after seeing the merg intimation Exhibit- P/4, he has admitted that the said information was received at the police station on 15.01.2005 at 16:25 hrs. and after receipt of the information, he went to the M.Y. Hospital and prepared a Laash Panchanama on 16.01.2005. But he did not remember that whether he sent a copy of the FIR along with an application to the doctor requesting for postmortem.
He has denied that till 16.01.2005 at 11:30 hrs. no FIR was registered in the police station. Even if it is treated to be correct then the FIR was recorded at 15:30 hrs. at the police station, Pandrinath, Indore and information about the death were received at 16:25 hrs. Investigating Officer reached the hospital and drew a Naksha Panchnama on 16.01.2005 at 11.30. hrs whereas the information had already been received on 15.01.2005 at 16:25 hrs. but no explanation has been given for the delay in taking action. The FIR had been registered before recording the merg therefore column in respect of merg information number is left blank. As no merg number is mentioned in the FIR hence there was no information about the death at the time of registration of the FIR. Hence it is cannot be believed that this FIR is antedated in order to implicate other co-accused persons in this case.
- : 7 :-
8. The FIR was recorded by Gauri@Gaurav P.W.-11 and according to him after accused persons fled away from the spot they reached the police station and lodged FIR vide Exhibit-P/12. He took Arjun to the district hospital. After examination, the doctor has informed that Arjun is dead. In para-37 of the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that in the police station he narrated the entire incident and police lodged a report. Therefore, the contentions of Shri Sirpurkar learned senior counsel that its an antedated FIR is un-found and accordingly rejected.
9. The only issue which requires consideration as raised by Shri Sirpurkar learned sr. counsel that non conviction under section 148 of the IPC whether the appellants no 2 to 8 can be convicted under section 302 with the aid of section 149 of the IPC. That only Dinesh appellant No. 1 was charged under section 148 as he was carrying a deadly weapon i.e. a knife, rest of the accused / appellants No. to 8 were not charged under section 148 I.P.C. hence question of their acquittal does not arise. Dinesh has rightly been convicted under section 148 I.P.C. which is a substantive provision.
10. So far the conviction of appellants no 2 to 8 under section 147 and 323/149 and 302/149 I.P.C. are concerned as per the statement of Gauri@Gaurav (P.W.-11) that on 15.01.2005 at 15:15 hrs. he was standing with Arjun and Neelesh and after five minutes Chandrakant also joined them. Kamal (A-6) came there and started abusing him with filthy language. Chandrakant slapped him and the accused persons have started abusing them, one of them inquired about Arjun, and Arjun came forward and introduced himself. Dinesh (A-1) and Kamal (A-6) went to the house of Ravi (A-7) which is 20-25 feet away from the above location thereafter, all the eight accused persons came back wielding a knife, sticks and bottles in their hands. Dinesh (A-1) was carrying a knife, Manoj (A-2) was having a stick, all the other accused persons were carrying glass bottles. Dinesh came there and tried to cause injury to Arjun by means of a knife. He was saved by Gouri by raising his hand and he sustained injuries in his hand. Thereafter, Tarachand (A-3) and Laxmibai (A-4) caught hold of Gouri and Dinesh stabbed a knife to
- : 8 :-
Arjun on his stomach. In the FIR and police statement, Gouri @ Gourav (P.W.-11) states that Smt. Laxmibai caught him but in court's statement, he has tried to implicate Tarachand by improving his statement. Arjun started bleeding Manoj gave a blow by stick to Chandrakant and he also started bleeding. Dinesh stabbed Vijay also. Thereafter, other accused have started pelting the bottles which hit accused Tarachand and Smt. Laxmibai. Similar evidence was given by Chandrakant P.W.-7, Sonu P.W.-5 and injured Vijay P.W.-6.
11. As per the prosecution story out of eight accused persons Dinesh was car-
rying a knife, Manoj was carrying a hockey stick and other accused persons were carrying bottles and formed an unlawful assembly. Appellant no.1 has been con- victed under section 148 of the IPC and sections 302/149 of the IPC and sections 323/149 of the IPC and appellant no.2 to 8 have been convicted under sections 294, 147, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC. As discussed above only Appellant no.1-Dinesh has been convicted under section 148 of the IPC alone because he was carrying/used a deadly weapon i.e. a knife that was used as a weapon for an offence that is likely to cause death. The appellant nos.1 to 8 allegedly came to the spot with a common object to assault P.W.-11 and others hence they formed an unlawful assembly . By virtue of section 142 of the IPC whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly or an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly which is punishable under section 143 of the IPC for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. Whoever is armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which is used as a weapon for the offence is likely to cause death shall be punished under section 144 of the IPC. Section 146 of the IPC defines rioting. Whoever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by means of the member shall be guilty of the offence of rioting for which the punishment is provided under section 147 of the IPC. An offence of rioting armed with a deadly weapon is punishable under sec- tion 148 of the IPC. So far, the act attributable is confined up to force or violence by any member of the unlawful assembly with a deadly weapon it is punishable under section 147 of the IPC if an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, every person who at the time of committing the offence is mem- ber of the same assembly is guilty of that offence punishable under sections 149 I.P.C. with any other substantive section. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Dev Karan v. State of Haryana, (2019) 8 SCC 596 has held as under:-
11. The learned counsel took us through the provisions of Chapter VIII of IPC, dealing with "Offences against the Public Tranquility". It was his submission that the provisions have to be read holistically, and in sequence. Thus, Section 141 IPC defines an "unlawful assembly" as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object. Such common objects are specified in the section, and what would be applicable, in this case, would be the third aspect i.e. "to
- : 9 :-
commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence". Section 142 IPC provides that a person who, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly, while Section 143 IPC provides the punishment for being part of such an unlawful assembly. Section 144 IPC deals with joining an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapon, which is likely to cause death; Section 146 IPC deals with rioting; Section 147 IPC deals with punishment for rioting while Section 148 IPC deals with rioting, armed with deadly weapon. Section 149 IPC reads as under:
"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
12. It was, thus, the submission advanced that unless there is infliction of punishment under Section 143 IPC, as a sequitur to forming an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC, there could be no cause to apply Section 149 IPC.
13. The learned counsel referred to the judgment in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel [Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 340] to elucidate his submission. The concept of vicarious liability, as a result of which a large number of accused constituting an unlawful assembly can be held guilty, has been discussed, to hold that it is not necessary that each of the accused inflict fatal injury or any injury at all; the mere presence of an accused in such an assembly is sufficient to render him vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC, for causing the death of the victim of the attack, provided that the accused are told that they are to face the charge, rendering them so vicariously liable. The principle of this vicarious liability, under Section 149 IPC has been set out in para 28 of the judgment and reads as under: (SCC p. 755) "28. Section 149 propounds a vicarious liability [Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar [Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725 : 1960 Cri LJ 1144] ] in two contingencies by declaring that (i) if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offence in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, then every member of such unlawful assembly is guilty of the offence committed by the other members of the unlawful assembly, and (ii) even in cases where all the members of the unlawful assembly do not share the same common object to commit a particular offence, if they had the knowledge of the fact that some of the other members of the assembly are likely to commit that particular offence in prosecution of the common object."
(emphasis in original)
- : 10 :-
14. The concept of unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC was, thus, as per para 31, opined to have two elements: (Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel case [Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 340] , SCC p. 756) "(i) The assembly should consist of at least five persons; and
(ii) They should have a common object to commit an offence or achieve any one of the objects enumerated therein."
15. In that context, in paras 32 and 33, it has been observed as under:
(Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel case [Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 340] , SCC p. 756) "32. For recording a conclusion, that a person is (i) guilty of any one of the offences under Sections 143, 146 or 148 or (ii) vicariously liable under Section 149 for some other offence, it must first be proved that such person is a member of an "unlawful assembly" consisting of not less than five persons irrespective of the fact whether the identity of each one of the 5 persons is proved or not. If that fact is proved, the next step of inquiry is whether the common object of the unlawful assembly is one of the 5 enumerated objects specified under Section 141 IPC.
33. The common object of assembly is normally to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as the time and place of the gathering of the assembly, the conduct of the gathering as distinguished from the conduct of the individual members are indicative of the common object of the gathering.
Assessing the common object of an assembly only on the basis of the overt acts committed by such individual members of the assembly, in our opinion is impermissible. For example, if more than five people gather together and attack another person with deadly weapons eventually resulting in the death of the victim, it is wrong to conclude that one or some of the members of such assembly did not share the common object with those who had inflicted the fatal injuries (as proved by medical evidence); merely on the ground that the injuries inflicted by such members are relatively less serious and non-fatal."
(emphasis in original) The appellant nos.2 to 8 were not tried under section 148 of the IPC because one of the members of that unlawful assembly i.e. Dinesh has committed the offence of murder and hurt by using deadly weapon. The Appellants no 2. to 8 have been tried under section 147 of the IPC for using force or violence without deadly weapon hence they have rightly been convicted for the offence committed under section 147, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC being a member of unlawful assembly.
12. Initially the FIR was registered against all the eight accused /appellants. There is an overact by appellants Dinesh and Manoj by
- : 11 :-
assault by means of knife and stick. In FIR Gauri@ Gaurav has disclosed that when Dinesh gave a blow by a knife to Arjun which he took on his hand and sustained injuries on palm and Smt. Laxmibai caught hold of him and Dinesh again stabbed in the chest to the deceased -Arjun, and he fell down. Thereafter, Chandrakant was hit the Manoj by stick, Rakesh and Ravi have pelted the bottles which hit Tarachand and Smt. Laxmibai. There is an MLC in respect of injuries to Tarachand and Smt. Laxmibai. Appellants Manoj, Rakesh, and Ravi are sons of Tarachand, and Smt. Laxmibai is the wife of Tarachand. In the court statement, Gouri (P.W.-
11) has improvised his version. The allegation against Smt. Laxmibai is that she caught hold Gauri@ Gaurav after saving Arjun from knife blow, therefore, she has prevented the help coming to the deceased Arjun, hence she has rightly been convicted under section 302/149. In the FIR and police statement, the Gauri@ Gaurav (P.W.-11) did not make an allegation against appellant No. 3 Tarachand but in the court's statement, he states that he also caught him along with Smt. Laxmibai but there is no corroboration by any other material evidence, but he also sustained injuries from the bottle throne by Ravi and Rakesh, hence his presence on the spot is also established.
13. Appellants No. 3 and 4 Tarachand and Smt. Laxmibai also sus- tained injuries from bottles thrown by Ravi and Rakesh. There is the only allegation against them that they caught hold the Gouri (P.W.-11) only but did not cause any injury to anyone. Since they have suffered injuries during the scuffle with the complainant and 3 others, hence their presence on the spot is established. Smt. Laxmibai has caught hold Gauri (P.W.-11) who was saving Arjun from Dinesh thereafter Dinesh stabbed a knife on his chest due to which he died; hence the conviction of Smt. Laxmibai and Tarachand are liable to be confirmed.
14. So far, others the appellant Ravi, and Rakesh are concerned there are allegations that they pelted the glass bottles on the spots due to which two accused Tarachand and Smt. Laxmibai sustained the injuries. Police did not recover broken glasses and bottles from the spot. There were no allegations initially against them that they were carrying bottles. As per
- : 12 :-
the initial version of Gauri@ Gaurav (P.W.-11) in the FIR only Rakesh and Ravi were carrying bottles. By way of improvisation, allegations have been levelled against Narendra and Kamal that they also pelted the bottles. Only in the spot map, some pieces of glass are shown to be lying on the spot and it appears that it has been added later on (B to B part). This might be lapse on part of the Investigation Officer, but no benefit goes in favour of the appellants. So far appellants No. 5 & 6 Narendra and Kamal are concerned their involvement and presence in the above crime have not been established by the prosecution. They are entitled to acquittal from all charges .
15. As per the prosecution story initially appellants Kamal and Dinesh fought with Gouri (P.W.-11 )and ors. and they went to the house of Manoj or Ravi and there was a meeting of mind inside the house and after 2-3 minutes all 8 the appellants came back wielding arms and bottles to commit the offence. In our considered opinion the appellants there was a meeting of minds to make planning to commit the above offence hence common object between the appellant Nos. 1,2,3, 4, 7 and 8 are established on the spot, hence they are liable to be convicted with the aid of section 149 I.P.C. There is no challenge to the conviction of the appellant No. 1-Dinesh hence same is liable to be confirmed.
16. Resultantly this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant Nos. 1,2,3, 4, 7 and 8 are hereby confirmed. The appellant Nos. 5 and 6 (Narendra and Kamal) are hereby acquitted from all charges.
17. Appellant No.1 is already in jail and Appellants No. 2,4,7 and 8 are directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentences and the bail bond of appellants no 5 to 6 are hereby discharged.
Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail and the trial Court along with the record.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ajit/-
AJIT
Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
KAMALAS 2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed
6cba241effad892107d95ef0a1afc55b4,
pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D6
1A1EE901C09EF29,
ANAN
serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F32474
41C87E7E0817FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9
FF, cn=AJIT KAMALASANAN
Date: 2021.11.12 16:31:53 +05'30'