Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by two accused persons against their conviction for the murder of Ram Babu, a bus conductor. The appeal arose from an incident on 27.2.1981, at about 1:00 p.m., when a bus travelling from Dholpur to Khuthiyana Ghat was stopped near Faratpur by five persons armed with weapons. The deceased Ram Babu was the conductor of the bus. The accused Rammo carried a gun. The group attempted to drag Ram Babu out of the bus, and when unsuccessful, Rammo fired two shots at him, while the others assaulted him with weapons, resulting in his death. The trial court convicted Rammo under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the other accused, including the appellants Hari Charan (A-3) and Siya Ram (A-4), under Section 302 read with Section 49 IPC. The High Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal only to Hari Charan and Siya Ram. The prosecution examined three eyewitnesses: PW-1 Kedarnath, PW-3 Ramjilal (brother of the deceased), and PW-6 Satpal Singh, the bus driver. PW-7 did not support the prosecution. The trial court did not believe PW-3 Ramjilal due to his relationship and absence from the bus. It relied on the evidence of PW-1 Kedarnath, who testified that the bus was stopped by five persons, that Rammo put a gun on the chest of the driver and threatened him, that the group tried to pull down the conductor, and that Rammo fired two shots while the remaining three assaulted Ram Babu with weapons. Kedarnath's evidence was corroborated by PW-2 Ram Swaroop, who prepared a report immediately after being informed by Kedarnath and submitted it at the police station. The defence attempted to discredit Kedarnath by pointing out that he stated he was returning after purchasing 'Gwarsa' fertilizer, whereas the bill showed urea; however, the court considered this a minor discrepancy not sufficient to doubt his presence in the bus. The hostile testimony of Satpal Singh in cross-examination also indicated that Kedarnath was travelling in the bus with bags of fertilizers. The appellants contended that there was no clear evidence of any overt act by A-3 and A-4 suggesting they were acting in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or that they were even members of any unlawful assembly. They further argued that even if they were members, there was no evidence that the murder was committed in order to achieve the object of that unlawful assembly, and therefore their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 49 IPC was not correct. The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence of PW-1 Kedarnath and found his testimony clear and credible. It noted that both courts below had relied on his evidence and that it was rightly appreciated. The court held that once Kedarnath's evidence was accepted, it became clear that all five accused were acting in prosecution of their common object: they had gone to the place of incident armed with weapons, stopped the bus, put the gun on the driver's chest, tried to drag out Ram Babu, Rammo fired two shots at him, other accused assaulted him with weapons, and they ran away together. The minor discrepancy in fertilizer names did not affect Kedarnath's presence. The court concluded that the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 49 IPC and dismissed the appeal. The appellants were directed to surrender to custody to serve the remaining part of their sentence, and the State was directed to take them into custody and take appropriate steps for that purpose.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Common Object and Constructive Liability - Liability for acts committed in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 49 - Appellants were part of a group that stopped a bus, threatened the driver, attempted to drag out the conductor, and participated in assaulting and killing him - Court inferred common object from the concerted actions of the accused, including coming armed, acting together, and fleeing together - Held that all accused acted in prosecution of their common object and were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 49 IPC. B) Criminal Evidence - Appreciation of Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility of sole eyewitness despite minor discrepancies and hostile corroborating witness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 49 - Prosecution relied on PW-1 Kedarnath, whose evidence was found clear and corroborated by the immediate report prepared by PW-2 and by the hostile driver's cross-examination indicating Kedarnath's presence - Minor discrepancy regarding type of fertilizer purchased was not sufficient to discredit the witness - Held that courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and conviction was proper.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly and acted in prosecution of its common object to commit the murder of Ram Babu, thereby liable under Section 302 read with Section 49 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 49 IPC. The appellants were directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of their sentence, and the State was directed to take them into custody and take appropriate steps for that purpose.
Law Points
- Common object of unlawful assembly can be inferred from concerted actions
- constructive liability under Section 49 IPC for acts done in prosecution of common object
- sole eyewitness testimony sufficient if credible
- minor discrepancies do not discredit witness
- hostile witness cross-examination can corroborate presence and events
