Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: April 2, 2022 at 12:50 IST
The Supreme Court recently ruled that all members of an unlawful assembly are equally guilty, even if they play different roles.
The Two Judge Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna of Supreme Court overturned the order of the Allahabad High Court that had allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent and has acquitted the respondent for the offences under Section 302 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Two-Judge Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna were hearing an Appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of the Allahabad High Court that had allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent and has acquitted the respondent for the offences under Section 302 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Apex Court by analyzing the Dying Declaration got to know that victim was attacked by 6-7 persons, including the respondent and just because the weapon used has not been recovered doesn’t makes the whole dying declaration irrelevant and false.
The fact that two persons were acquitted and only three were charge-sheeted cannot be the ground to not to convict the respondent accused under Section 148 IPC.
That by making an inference of the findings of the Apex Court, it is clear that there is no reason to doubt the dying declaration.
“Therefore, involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. Merely because three persons were chargesheeted/charged/tried and even out 19 of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the respondent accused under Section 148 IPC..” the Court said.
That the Apex Court while deciding the question whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC is concerned stated that the High Court, acquitted the respondent mainly on the basis of the fact that it has been mentioned in the dying declaration that the accused hit the deceased with a hockey stick and it is still unknown who stabbed the deceased with the knife.
On this finding the Apex Court was of the view that even if the role attributed to the respondent is of a less dangerous crime this doesn’t mean that still the respondent cannot be held guilty for the heinous act committed by the unlawful assembly.
“Even if the role attributed to the respondent -accused was that of hitting the deceased by a hockey stick, in that case also for the act of other persons, who were part of the unlawful assembly of inflicting the knife blow, the respondent accused can be held guilty of having committed the murder of deceased Bengali, with the aid of Section 149 IPC.” the Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the order of the Allahabad High Court by stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondent accused is held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC.
Also read: Can a Dying Declaration Form the Basis of a Conviction?
What is Unlawful Assembly and Legal Provisions relating to it?
