A division bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase, recently upheld the conviction of five accused in a murder case. The appellants had challenged the order of conviction because a mere plea of 'not being armed' should absolve them from liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a long-standing dispute over a field for cultivation between the informant, Devidas Bhujbal, and the five accused. Deceased Sudhakar, the informant's brother, was assisting him in cultivating the field, leading to frequent quarrels with the accused. The situation escalated on the morning of August 19, 2011, when a quarrel broke out between Sudhakar and the appellants. The informant intervened and took Sudhakar back home, but another quarrel erupted later in the day.
Contentions of the Parties:
According to the prosecution's case, at around 12:30 p.m., Sudhakar and the accused were engaged in a heated argument in front of Bhaskar's house. The informant received a call from another witness, Ganesh Bhujbal, informing him about the ongoing quarrel. Rushing to the scene, the informant witnessed the accused brutally assaulting Sudhakar. Two of the accused, Dattarao, armed with a sickle, and Digambar, carrying a knife, were the main assailants. Meenabai and Sojarbai, the other two accused, engaged in a scuffle with Sudhakar's wife when she tried to intervene. Tragically, Sudhakar succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The accused were subsequently arrested and charged.
During the trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness accounts, particularly those of Ganesh Bhujbal and another witness, Babruwan, which were consistent and established the occurrence of the assault beyond doubt. The trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted them under Sections 144, 148, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The appellants challenged the veracity of the witnesses' testimonies, alleging contradictions and inconsistencies, and argued that they should not be held liable under Section 149 of IPC as they did not commit any overt acts.
Observations of the Court:
However, the division bench of the High Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that under Section 149 of IPC, liability extends to every member of an unlawful assembly who shares the common object, even if they did not personally commit an overt act. The court upheld the conviction, stating that the gathering of the accused was with a common intention, and each of the appellants had a definite roles in the assault.
The Court also noted that a mere plea of 'not being armed' cannot absolve a person from liability when they are part of an unlawful assembly whose members indulged in unlawful acts. The court clarified that awareness of the probable and natural outcome of the acts committed by the unlawful assembly is assumed for all its members.
The decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the appellants guilty of the charges and dismissing their appeals.
Case Name: Hanuman S/o Dattarao Karkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Coram: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2016
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for Appellant Nos.1 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No.372/2016 and Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.600/2023 [appointed]
Advocates of the Respondent: A. V. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State in both appeals
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
