Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.246 of 1995 on 30.12.1996. The prosecution case was that on 12.8.1995 at about 8.30 p.m. in land bearing Gat No.1467 of village Kosari, all five accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder of Maruti Sidu Katare, father of P.W.2 Apasaheb, and also to cause hurt to P.W.2 Apasaheb in prosecution of that common object. They were armed with stones and sticks and committed rioting, causing the death of Maruti. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The defense of the accused was total denial, and they examined two witnesses to show they were not involved. The trial judge, after considering the evidence, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, on appeal, scrutinized the entire evidence and reappreciated it. The court noted that the prosecution alleged formation of an unlawful assembly and assault in pursuance of a common object, but the evidence fell short of proving the unlawful assembly with common object. The court held that merely because five or more persons gathered and an assault is alleged, it cannot be necessarily inferred that the assault was the object of the assembly and therefore it was an unlawful assembly with a common object. The High Court agreed with the reasoning and findings of the trial judge and, applying the established proposition that an appellate authority concurring with the trial court need not give elaborate reasons, dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of V.G. Palshikar and R.C. Chavan, JJ. on 30th June, 2005.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Sections 141, 143, 147, 148, 302, 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution alleged that five accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to murder Maruti Sidu Katare and cause hurt to P.W.2 Apasaheb. The trial court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object. The High Court concurred with the trial court's reasoning and dismissed the State's appeal. Held that merely because five or more persons gathered and an assault is alleged, it cannot be inferred that the assault was the common object of an unlawful assembly (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder and rioting.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Law Points
- Unlawful assembly
- common object
- acquittal appeal
- appellate court concurrence
- need not elaborate reasons
