iminal Appeal No 22 of 1971
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment  Order dated the 30th March 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal appeal No 536 of 1966
P P Juneja for the appellant
Ram Punjwani and H section Parihar for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
This is an appeal by special leave by one out of 118 persons who were prosecuted for participation in a serious riot on August 1 1965 in village Ganiari Tehsil Bilaspur in the State of Madhya Pradesh as a result of which several persons were attacked with sharp edged weapons and three of them died of wounds sustained by them
Five accused persons were discharged by the Committing Magistrate
One hundred and thirteen persons were jointly tried for various offences punishable under Sections 147 148 302 307 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code
Charges were also alternatively framed under Section 464 302149 307149 323149 and 325149 against all of them
An Additional Sessions  Judge of Bilaspur acquitted sixty one accused persons And convicted fifty two persons
He found all the convicted persons guilty under Section 147 PC and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment
We need only mention the other convictions of the appellant before us
He was held guilty under Section 3041149 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 325149 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323149 IPC and sentenced to a month s rigorous imprisonment
On appeals by the convicted persons as well as by the State Government the High Court while convicting only fourteen persons including the appellant altered his conviction under section 3041 149 IPC into three convictions under Section 302149 for the murder of three persons Badlu Santu Chhote Bhurwa but it made the sentences of life imprisonment concurrent for the three offences
It main tained the other convictions and sentences passed by the learned Sessions  Judge
Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to advance some arguments to assail the conviction of the appellant for participation in rioting
But we are not impressed by any of the criticisms leveled against six witnesses relied upon by the Trial Court as well as the High Court Baliram PW 1 Ganesh Rao PW 2 Gangaram PW 3 Bade Bhurwa PW 4 Kabra PW 5 and Lulwa PW 7
The unshaken evidence of these witnesses had established that the appellant had participated in the riot and chased the victims and even inflicted some minor injuries on Baliram PW 1
But beyond that the participation of the appellant in the actual acts of cutting the limbs of the three persons who eventually died of profuse bleeding was not deposed to by any prosecution witness
Although we are unable to disturb the concurrent finding of the fact by the Trial Court and the High Court of the participation of the appellant in the serious riot which took place on 1 8 1965 in village Ganiari we are also unable to concur with the view of the High Court that on facts established the common object of the unlawful assem bly was necessarily to cause the death of the three individuals who unfortunately lost their lives as a result of the out burse of frenzy of an outraged mob against persons who according to the learned Session  Judge had given cause to the villagers to be seriously displeased with their nefarious activities
The learned Sessions  Judge while convicting the appellant under Section 3041 had observed I am inclined to take a lenient view of these killings because the persons killed had become a nuisance to the village community and their criminal acts knew no bounds or rationality
A time comes when even an orderly society revolts finding no relief in the regular course
Though such acts are not permissible even in such cases and cannot be encouraged yet due discrimination was not lost sight of by 4 65 the assailants and severe penalty is thus not called for in the present case  We do not consider these reasons of the learned Sessions Judge who had given them for convicting the appellant together with other accused persons under Section 304 1 149 IPC and sentencing them to five years  rigorous imprisonment to be at all sound or relevant in justifying a conviction under Section 3041149 IPC
The learned Sessions  Judge had relied upon Kapur Singh vs State of Pepsu1 to hold that as injuries were inflicted upon the limbs of the three men who died of bleeding but infliction of injuries on vital parts of the body was deliberately avoided an intention of anybody to murder was not established
The learned Session s Judge appears to have overlooked the various clauses of Section 300 IPC
An intention to kill is not required in every case
A knowledge that the natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction under Section 302 IPC
The question on which we entertain serious doubts after examining the nature of the case and the relevant evidence on record is whether the killing of any of the three men who died was within the common object of the large number of persons who
took part in the riot in various ways in a fairly wide spread area
It may well be that those who actually inflicted the injuries on the three men who died could be held liable for causing death in a particularly cruel manner
The question nevertheless remains whether each of the large number of other rioters in the village who took part in various ways in what appeared to be an upsurge of resentment and hostility against a party three of which lost their lives shared the common object to kill them or to do acts whose natural and probable results would be their deaths
A reference made to Chikkarange Gowda  Ors
vs State of Mysore2 would show that each member of a mob need not be necessarily be held liable for the actions of every other member of that mob
It may be easier in some respects to prove a common object as a basis for a vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC than to establish a common intention within the meaning of Section 34 IPC
Nevertheless as was pointed out by this Court in Chikkarange Gowda s case supra the principle has been well recognised since the decision in 1873 in Queen vs Sabed Ali3 that every offence which may be committed by a member of an unlawful assembly will not be necessarily ascribed to or vicariously fastened upon every other member of that assembly by using Section 149 IPC
The likelihood of causing of death by the nature of the actions of the members of the assembly must be shown to be within the knowledge of a member who is to be made vicariously liable for a death
Such knowledge may be inferred from the nature of the actions committed by others in an unlawful assembly which the member held vicariously liable continues to associate himself with despite these actions seen by him or known to him
In a case such as the one before us in which there were two factions in a village one of the oppressors and the other of the oppressed 1 AIR 1956 SC 654
2 AIR 1956 SC 731
3 20 Sut
WR Cr 5 A
466 smarting under the pain of injuries inflicted by their oppressors the intention of a member of an assembly could be initially quite lawful
His object may not go beyond joining a procession for purposes of protest
We are convinced on the evidence on record that the participation of the appellant before us went beyondexhibiting a mere intention to protest
It not only embraced knowledge of likelihood of hurt of some kind to members of the party attacked but it included an attack by the appellant on Baliram PW 1
The nature of that attack was however relatively mild
At most from the concerted action of so many men a member of the unlawful assembly on the facts and circumstances of the case before us could be reasonably held to be aware that grievous hurt would result
After examining all the evidence relating to the participation of the appellant and others in the riot we are left in grave doubt whether the assembly had a common object of killing any one at all  even if such was really the object of any particular member or members of the unlawful assembly
It may be that those who cut the limbs of men who lost their lives due to bleeding could reasonably be held liable for murder
But it seems to be unlikely that each member considering the nature of the riot and the different acts of different members of the riotous assembly had such an object
This was exactly the view adopted by this Court in Chikkarange Gowda s case supra
As we are doubtful whether the appellant could be held guilty of participation in an unlawful assembly which had the common object of killing or even maiming the three men who lost their lives we think that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 302149 IPC
We also think that the learned Sessions  Judge was in error in holding that the appellant could be convicted under Section 304 1 149 IPC
For a conviction under Section 3041 IPC it has to be shown that the case of the convicted person falls within one of the five Exceptions found in Section 300 IPC
It is obvious that the case of the appellant does not fall under any of these Exceptions
If it is doubtful whether the common object of the unlawful assembly joined by the appellant was to commit any acts which were either intended to cause death or from which knowledge of likelihood of death could be inferred we think that persons other than those who actually committed the acts resulting in death could not be held vicariously liable for murder
The result is that we allow this appeal to the extent that we set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant under Section 302149 IPC
We maintained his convictions and sentences under Section 147 323149 and 325149 IPC
Subject to the modification indicated here this appeal is dismissed
We understand that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment longer than the longest one imposed for the convictions sustained by us
We therefore direct that he be released forthwith unless wanted in some other connection
PHP Appeal allowed


Summary:
118 persons were prosecuted for participation in a serious riot
5 accused were discharged by the Committing Magistrate
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 61 accused and convicted 52 under section 147 and sentenced them to 2 years  rigorous imprisonment
The appellant was held guilty under section 3041 read with 149 and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under section 325149 sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and under section 323149 sentenced to a month s rigorous imprisonment
The convicted persons and the State filed appeals before the High Court
Tile High Court convicted 14 persons including the appellant and altered his conviction under section 3041149 into 302149 for the murder of 3 persons and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment
The Learned Counsel for the appellant before this Court contended that the appellant did not participate in the riot
HELD  This Court is unable to disturb the concurrent findings of the two courts below about appellant s participation in the riot
The High Court however was wrong in holding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was necessarily to cause death of three individuals
In a case like the present there were two factions one of the oppressors and the other of the opp ressed and the intention of members of the oppressed faction could be initially to demonstrate quite lawfully
The circumstances showed that the appellant s intention may have been confined to joining a procession for purposes of protest
If it is doubtful that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death persons other than those who actually committed the acts resulting in death could not be held vicariously liable for murder
464F G 564H466D The judgment of the High Court as far as appellant is concerned was set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored 446G