Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a common judgment of the Patna High Court dated March 31, 1987, which dismissed two criminal appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 314 of 1981. Four accused, namely Sheoji Prasad, Udai Prasad, Parameswar Prasad, and Behari Prasad, were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act for the murder of Lal Babu (also referred to as Ram Babu) on April 5, 1980. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with deceased accused Rameswar Prasad, formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the deceased to prevent delivery of possession of a shop room pursuant to a court order. The incident occurred near the shop premises after a Naib Nazir, who had been deputed to execute the delivery of possession, left without completing the task due to a tenancy claim by a third party. The prosecution case was that the accused then attacked the deceased and his companions; Udai Prasad fired a countrymade pistol, Parameswar and Behari held the deceased's arms, and Rameswar and Sheoji assaulted others. The deceased succumbed to injuries. The trial court convicted all four accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed their appeals. In the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the conviction, primarily through senior counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar appearing for Behari Prasad. The arguments, as per the available text, contended that the prosecution witnesses were interested relatives of the deceased, no independent witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a busy market area, the accused were practically unarmed indicating absence of common object, the presence of the accused near the shop was natural due to tenancy and residence, and the prosecution story was improbable because the Naib Nazir had already left. The provided judgment text ends during the appellant's arguments and does not include the Supreme Court's analysis or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/149 and 34 IPC; whether the prosecution established the formation of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder; whether the evidence of interested witnesses was sufficient to sustain conviction; whether the conduct of the accused, who were largely unarmed, was consistent with a premeditated common intention to murder.
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (01) 114
1996 SCC (2) 317, JT 1996 (1) 93, 1996 SCALE (1)162
Sushil Kumar (Senior Counsel for appellant Behari Prasad)
Behari Prasad, Udai Prasad, Parameswar Prasad, Sheoji Prasad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and related offences.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal by setting aside the High Court judgment affirming their conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Convicted by trial court under Sections 302/149 etc; High Court dismissed their appeals; hence appealed to Supreme Court.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted all four accused; Patna High Court dismissed Criminal Appeals No.390/1983 and No.382/1983 and affirmed convictions and sentences.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/149 and 34 IPC?
Whether the prosecution proved the formation of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder?
Whether the evidence of interested witnesses, in the absence of independent witnesses, was sufficient to sustain conviction?
Whether the conduct of the accused, who were largely unarmed, was consistent with a premeditated common intention to murder?
Submissions/Arguments
The prosecution witnesses P.W.1, 2, 3, 4 are close relations of the deceased and interested; no independent witnesses examined despite incident in busy market area.
Since the Naib Nazir had left without delivering possession, there was no occasion for the accused to commit murder; prosecution story improbable.
The accused were practically unarmed; only Sheoji had a hockey stick and Rameswar picked up an iron rod; absence of weapons indicates no common object or intention to murder.
The presence of accused near the shop was natural because Sheoji was tenant and others lived upstairs; therefore no unlawful assembly.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecution case in short is that on a false plea of tenancy raised by Dariachhan, the Naib Nazir being prevailed upon by the deceased Rameswar, accepted the case of tenancy and did not deliver possession to Ram Babu without ascertaining real state of affair.
The very fact that the accused were practically unarmed, amply indicates that there was no common object or common intention to commit murder of Ram Babu.
Procedural History
Trial court (4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah) convicted the accused in Sessions Trial No.314 of 1981 on July 18, 1983. The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal No.390 of 1983 (Udai Prasad and two others) and Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1983 (Sheoji Prasad) before the Patna High Court. The High Court dismissed both appeals by common judgment dated March 31, 1987, affirming the convictions and sentences. The accused then approached the Supreme Court, which heard the appeals; the provided text ends during the appellant's arguments without indicating the final outcome.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 34, 109
- Arms Act, 1959: 27
