Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.87 seconds)Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 460 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Lalji & Ors vs State Of U.P on 17 January, 1989
Nevertheless as per the evidence of all the
eyewitnesses, a large number of villagers had
gathered there and they had with them lathis
and sticks. According to the explanation to
Section 141 IPC an assembly which is not
unlawful when it assembles may subsequently
become an unlawful assembly. As observed by
this Court in Lalji v. State of U.P. {(1989)
1 SCC 437 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 211} "that common
object of the unlawful assembly can be
gathered from the nature of the assembly,
arms used by them and the behaviour of the
assembly at or before the scene of
occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced
from the facts and circumstances of each
case". What has happened in the present case
is precisely what has been envisaged in the
explanation to Section 141 IPC. With Khima
Nand being injured, all hell broke loose. A
cry was raised that the Doms should be burnt
and killed, and this is precisely what
happened. The marriage party was assaulted
by the villagers. Six of the members of the
marriage party were burnt, five of them
having been locked inside the house of the
only Dom resident of the village whose house
was also burnt. Eight others were pursued
and then mercilessly beaten and were killed
elsewhere in the village. We fail to
appreciate how anyone, under the
circumstances, can possibly come to the
conclusion that an unlawful assembly having
the common object of killing the Doms did not
exist when fourteen people have been killed
without the use of any weapon more lethal
than a stick or stone. Considering the
number of injuries on the persons who had
died, it is evident that a large number of
persons must have taken part in the assault.
Even if the assembly of villagers was
initially lawful, the same, undoubtedly,
became unlawful when the riot started after
Khima Nand was injured. All the eyewitnesses
have said that fifty or more villagers had
taken part in the attack. Who were members
of the assembly will be considered later but
what is relevant to note is that a large
number of villagers were present, duly armed
with lathis and sticks, when the occurrence
started and except six people who were burnt,
eight others were beaten to death by blows
from lathis, sticks and stones. It is
difficult to appreciate the conclusion of the
High Court that, under the circumstances, the
attackers probably had a similar object but
not a common object.
Hari vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2009
31. While dealing with same question, the Apex Court in the
matter of Hari v. State of Maharashtra12 has held that
relationship by itself cannot be ground to discredit the
evidence of eyewitnesses relatives of deceased, more so, when
deceased was murdered by his cousin (relative). Paras 21, 22
& 23 of the said judgment read thus,
"21. It may be true that all the vital
witnesses, namely, PW 1, 2 and 8 are
relations of the deceased but that by itself
cannot discredit their evidence. It is a
fight between the relations it has come on
record that the appellant is the cousin of
the deceased. In such a case, the relations
are likely to be the most appropriate
witnesses.
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2006
22. Certain decisions have been cited at
the Bar which need to be considered and
explained. About appreciation of evidence of
witnesses who are related to the deceased,
learned counsel for the appellant relied on a
decision of this Court in Avtar Singh vs.
State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 524. In that
case the facts were totally different and it
was opined by the learned Judges, in the
peculiar facts of that case, that enmity and
bad blood between the rival groups was
established beyond doubt. In that case no
report was lodged with the police regarding
the occurrence and this Court looked into the
evidence and opined that the story about
making an effort to lodge a report earlier
was not true. In that case the nambardar and
the chowkidar who were alleged to have
accompanied PW-1 to the police station were
not examined and there was a categoric denial
by PW6-Station House Officer about anyone
reporting the incident to him before
4.12.1989. This Court found that the High
Court has not at all noticed the facts. In
the background of those facts, this Court
held that proper caution was not exercised by
the High Court in appreciating the highly
partisan evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Mohabbat & Ors vs State Of M.P on 3 February, 2009
In the matter of Mohabbat and Ors. v. State of M.P.13 the
Apex Court has held that relationship is not ground to affect
credibility of witness, foundation has to be laid if plea of
false implication is raised. Para 7 of the said judgment
reads thus,
"7. Merely because the eye-witnesses are
family members their evidence cannot per se
be discarded. When there is allegation of
interestedness, the same has to be
established. Mere statement that being
relatives of the deceased they are likely to
falsely implicate the accused cannot be a
ground to discard the evidence which is
otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also
deal with the contention regarding
interestedness of the witnesses for
furthering the prosecution version.