Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by five appellants against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Amravati, for offences including murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC, unlawful assembly under Sections 143 and 148 IPC, and under the Arms Act and Bombay Police Act. The prosecution alleged that on the night of 21st June 2015, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased and his companions with weapons, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to others. The trial court convicted all appellants for the main offences, with appellant no.3 acquitted under the Arms Act. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of eyewitnesses and the identification of the appellants. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder. The identification of the appellants by the witnesses was doubtful as they did not know the accused prior to the incident and the identification parade was not properly conducted. The recovery of weapons was also not convincingly proved. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted all appellants of all charges. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Sections 141, 143, 148, 149, 302, 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder. In the absence of clear evidence of common object and participation, the conviction under Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained. (Paras 10-15) B) Evidence Law - Identification of Accused - Doubtful Identification - The testimony of witnesses regarding identification of accused persons must be reliable and free from doubt. Where the witnesses did not know the accused prior to the incident and the identification parade was not conducted properly, the identification becomes doubtful and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Arms Act - Possession of Weapons - Section 4 read with Section 25(1-B)(b) Arms Act, 1959 - The conviction under the Arms Act requires proof of possession of weapons beyond reasonable doubt. If the recovery of weapons is not proved or is doubtful, the accused must be acquitted. (Paras 21-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other offences is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object and the identification of the appellants was doubtful.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Case No.187/2015 on 20.08.2018 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. They are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Unlawful assembly
- Common object
- Section 149 IPC
- Identification of accused
- Benefit of doubt
- Acquittal
