Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay arose from a judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Sessions Case No. 271 of 1991, convicting four accused persons for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The case originated from an incident on 17 May 1991, when PW8 Keshav Darandale, a clerk in the Bhenda Cooperative Sugar Factory, was first abused and assaulted by accused No. 2 Pradip Bhandari at the office over an issue regarding sugarcane entry. Later that day, while PW8 was lodging a complaint at the Kukana Police Outpost, the accused, including the appellants, arrived armed with a sword and sticks. Accused No. 1 Rajendra Bhandari dealt a sword blow on PW8's head causing an incised wound, and other accused beat him and assaulted the head constable PW4 Yadav Satpute and security officer PW10 Tanaji Datir. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 307, 332, 353 read with Section 149, and Sections 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants preferred the present appeal contending false implication due to political rivalry during parliamentary elections. The High Court scrutinized the legal framework and observed a fundamental error in the trial court's judgment: Sections 147 and 148 of IPC are individual offences that punish the person guilty of rioting and the one armed with a deadly weapon, respectively, and cannot be combined with Section 149 which deals with vicarious liability for an offence committed by an unlawful assembly. The court thus held that conviction under Sections 147 read with 149 and 148 read with 149 is unsustainable, and only independent convictions under Sections 147 and 148 are permissible if proved. The judgment also examined medical evidence, which corroborated the presence of injuries on the victims, but the final decision on the appeal was not disclosed in the extracted portion.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offences Against Public Tranquillity - Sections 146, 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Misjoinder of Provisions - The High Court noted that the trial court had erroneously convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 147 read with Section 149 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, despite these being individual offences; Section 147 punishes the individual act of rioting as defined under Section 146, and Section 148 applies to a person who, while guilty of rioting, is armed with a deadly weapon; therefore, a conviction under these sections cannot be based on vicarious liability under Section 149 - Held, per curiam, that there cannot be conviction for offences under Sections 147 read with 149 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, but only for offences under Sections 147 and 148 individually if proved (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, when these sections constitute individual offences.
Law Points
- conviction under Section 147 IPC is individual offence
- conviction under Section 148 IPC is individual offence
- Section 149 cannot be applied to Sections 147 and 148
- rioting defined under Section 146 IPC
- individual culpability
- armed with deadly weapon
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 53
Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1997
Shri R.N. Dhorde for the appellants, Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the respondent State
Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari, Pradip Harakchand Bhandari, Sunil Sheshrao Garje, Sopan Pandurang Kharade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 307, 332, 353, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The appellants-accused sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10 December 1997 in Sessions Case No. 271 of 1991, convicting them for the offences mentioned above.
Previous Decisions
The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, convicted the appellants under Sections 307/149, 332/149, 353/149, 147/149 and 148/149 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted giving benefit of doubt.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, when these sections constitute individual offences and cannot be combined with Section 149.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the case was falsely filed due to political rivalry during parliamentary elections.
The State contended that the prosecution evidence, including injured witnesses and medical evidence, proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court observed that offences under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code are individual offences. Section 147 punishes the person guilty of rioting as defined under Section 146, and Section 148 applies to a rioter armed with a deadly weapon. Therefore, a conviction under these sections cannot be based on vicarious liability under Section 149. The proper course is to convict the accused individually under Sections 147 and 148 if the charge is proved.
Judgment Excerpts
the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not realise that offences punishable under Section 147 of I.P.C. is individual offence committed by whoever is guilty of rioting as defined under Section 146 of I.P.C. Similarly, offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. is individual in nature committed by the person who is guilty of rioting being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, if used as a weapon or offence, is likely to cause death. Therefore, there cannot be conviction for offences under Sections 147 read with 149 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, but only for offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC in individual capacity, if the same are proved.
Dr. Firodia, the Medical Officer then attached to Primary Health Center, Kukana, is examined as PW2 at Exhibit 23. He stated that on 17.5.1991, he examined PW8 Keshav at about 1.45 p.m. and following eight injuries were found on his person.
Procedural History
The incident occurred on 17 May 1991, leading to the registration of an FIR. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against six accused. The case was tried as Sessions Case No. 271 of 1991 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur. Vide judgment dated 10 December 1997, the court convicted the four appellants (original accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6) for offences under IPC and acquitted accused Nos. 3 and 4. Aggrieved, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1997 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The appeal was heard and judgment reserved on 27 January 2010, and pronounced on 3 February 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 332, 353, 147, 148, 149, 146
