% CF0000060921 fl Hion6e"4tCr^a^ IN THB E3.GS CWe-T OE JUBIC&TURS FOa lieQHyA PRAusaiAT J&B&LPUR . Criminal Appeal NO~. i7 83' /1996 APEELLANT: ^T' ^ ) a.4' / /' RaraesW s/o Rambar^s Haichchatri, y -age'd"abayt30 years, r/o Dholiya- Kanha.r,/ tebsil Kba-Lragach, distt.- RajndndgaoA'M•P• VSRSU. RESFONDtim': state of M«I?-/ o' by_^l£ 7^'^Ik^-^'^ S—^.a**w*T-«^'*"* ftiBfUtunin**"*" n oPBBaL UNuER i&SCTION 374(2) OF •£HS CQDE OS' C&IMIKLnL KROC1SQURS COIWICTION 0/Ss.302,302/149. IPC. U/s.l48,Il?C hBNTBiSKS ; Life Imprisonmeat and < fine of Rs.1000/- in i default &.I. for -6 months.J R.I.Por 6 months. _The annel lani-__ahQaSB-a'neit3 heas_ta—a-Fiafsr_^'^is ^ "XI-HC-22 ^ -^WlV',^, 8>'dWIS, StI^I^I !<-<i.'* snt^r i WtIWHfSCT j wiai'sbtii<»> 'M 200 ^e^ss' sn^i ^aiw'Hfta DIVISION BENCH: HON'BUE SHRI L.C.BHADOO &iiON'8LE SHRI DHIRENDRA MiSHRA. JJ CR1SVISNAL APpEAL N0. 783 of 1996 Respondent CRIMINAL APd'EAL N0. 787 of 1986 Appeliants Respondent Shri A!ok Pandev and Shri the accused/appellants. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additionail Agrav/ai, P.L. for the respondent/St^te °er L.CBhadoo. J Criminal Appea! No. 783 Ramesh and Cr. A. No. 787 of 19 Sai and Deora] are being dispose<( these appeals are arssing out of passed in S.T. No. 7/94. °ki'i|fcf41-) 'qTERif 4 fsizi 'tfSrezre ^ 3:lP<ftl 3TK% Ramesh Vs. State of IVIadhya Pradesh Shanti Bai 2.| Deoraj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Bhrawan Chandel learned counsel for Public Prosecutor with Shri Ravindra ORAll JUDGMENJ 07.03.2006) of 1996 fited by accused/appellant ^96 fi!ed by accused/appeilants Shanti of by this common judgment as both |the same crime and same judgment [Tft& y<a<\ m-HC-22 'S'ES "!<!<j|c|t|, t}^)'M<16, Sqcll'Hy. HltittT gilillft •M 200 'fsrs^sT' 3TRSI^( fe-fi.'* siig^i s^^i^ ^[g<r sn^T^giw^fe ^ cft}<ilfi<tli "qTO^Tf ^ 'fT^ <r<il^i< ^TSlPOTSII^T The accused/appellants have pr< 374(2) of the Criminal Procedur^ correctness of the judgment of 12.04.96 passed by learned Additie No. 7/94 whereby the learned accused/appellants guilty for convicted them under Sections 1 4) the IPC and sentenced each of th[ six months under Section 148 of life under Sections 302 and 302/1|. 1,000/-, in default of payment of However accused/appellant charges. •^ferred these appeais under Section Code questioning the legality and cibnviction and order of sentence dated ^nal Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in S.T. Add|tionai Sessions Judge after holding the comlnission of murder of one Rambha Bai (p,302 and 302 read with Section 149 of 1^ accused/appellants to undergo Rl for IPC and to undergo imprisonment for 1|49 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. to further undergo Rl for six mpnths. has been acquitted of the above trte fide Rarrjji satjon artd Case of the prosecution, in brief, report Ex.P-13 in the police statjor resident of village Thakur Toia p.m. he saw that Neelambar Gorjd, and other viliagers were standingl him that Gopal Mahar, his familyl murdered Rambha Bai doubtind dragged Rambha Bai inside hi: thereafter ail these persons He entered the house of Gopal in a pool of biood. He did not| impression that viliage Kotwar miyht has come to lodge the report. |s that Khem Prasad P.W.-8 lodged the Gandai to the effect that he is a a day before thereto at about 11.00 I, Lomus Gond, Mehttar Vishwakarma |near the house of Gopal whQ informed members and one of his guests have her to be. a witch. Accused Gopal Ijiouse by catehing hold of her hair and her with clubs and murdered her. saw that Rambha Baiwas lying dead come to lodge the report under the have reported the matter but now he R^ceiving this report the S.H.O. of police [in^^fail - assalilted arid XI-HC-22 '3^9 -ii ld'i|, ®'p'i<'i*is,^ HrwiTWirai •^l ;80 fa'bstST' 31^1 •qi1 Ki'ii'* sv^fi ^Ttff^ ^ti^T 3iT^i'?RiraT'(ri??i -^- «hi<]I<i<ililin^f '9 fest ^tezii ^; sipgq sn^i station Gandai registered the crimej and left for the scene of occurrencjs the body ofRambha Bai. Mouka by him. Seizure Panchnama Ex.P-)3 Gopa!, Tej Singh, Deoraj Singh, on the placeof occurrence. The In')/ one red colour Trishul, one 22", sword, one coconut wrapped in ctoth, one triangular red f!ag, on^ colour wqod along wWi a glass andone brass instrumentfneant fct one reQ'cloth under P-4. Based accused'appellant Gopal.foiiowingl under Section 364 and 302 of the IPC and prepared panchnama Ex.P-1 of Ffanchnama Ex. P-2 was aiso prepared was-prepared regarding presence of R^mesh, Ramji, Santosh and Shanti Bai 1/estigating Officer took into possession cjne 16" and one 26" iron Trishuls, one reV cloth and one coconutin rose cotour photograph of K.aali Maata, one red fri^me, one photograph of Durga Maata •performing pooja.onebrass lamp and dp the memorandum P-6, given by the larticles were recovered under Ex.P-5 : Sit a, one bamboo stick of 22 pov/der and some liquid stick, b. two pieces of bamboo c!i c. one cracked bamboo sti. black hair was stuck vviih ite p.1an Ex.P-8 v/as prepared by " in length smeared with chi!!i ype fiuid was also stuek on the ijb in the size of 13" and 15" & ij;k of 34" in tength, some long Ithe stick. the Patwari. Dead body of Rambha Bai was sent for postmortem examln^tion to Primary Health Centre, Chhui Khadan under Ex.P-9, where Dr. .Ajshok Khare conducted the post mortem on the body of Rambha Bai and The club-weapon of offence was jsrepared post mortem report Ex. P-10. ^lso examined by the doctor and gave his opinion Ex.P-11. After compl^tion of the investigation, charge sheet [^^fe^ XI-HC-22 -s^g -iii<)id.i). i?Tfly<i<», facii'yy "~) *ii*)«ii•aiiirai "WI, 200 3II^!qrI •f?:1Ri'3T.t?I ^f^<# -yf?d 3)13^1 TOffWHfef -^- was filed for the commisoion of offcnto undor Sootions 364, 302,1/17.1'18 ct:iA!^41Tt ^i^T^ T^^ <f^t-Wt< '^'3?t^pT3n^ 5. 6. 7. and 149 of the IPC in fhe Court Khairagarh against accused/appellan' and Deoraj. However, accused/appe of Judicial Magistrate First Class, s Gopal, Ramji, Ramesh, Shanti Bai llants Santosh Singh and Tej Singh being minor, 4heir case was referijed to the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned, Judicial Magistrate First Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon from Judge, Khairagarh received the case However, as accused/' ^- Go accused/appeltants Ramji, Ramesh , 31ass committed the case to the where learned Additional SessFons on transfer for trial. ?al died during the trial; therefore, Shanti Bai and Deoraj faced the trial before the Additional Sessions Judg4, Rajnandgaon and learned Session Judge after completion of the trial ^ parties convicted and sentehced the| paragraph two of the judgment. nd after hearing tfte counsel for the accused/appstlants as mentioned in We have heard Shri Alok Parjdey, counsel on behalf of the accused/appellant Ramesh and Shri phrawan Chandel, counsel on behalf of the accused/appellants Shanti B^i and Deoraj; and Shri U.N.S.Oeo, learned G.A. with Shri Ravindra Agrajwal, P.L. on behalfofthe State. Homicidal death of Rambha Bai is nd Shri Shrawan Chandel, learned argued that as far as accused Deor^j against him and he has been convicj and without proving the involvement| in question. As far as accused/api] argued that there are no allegations t in dispute. c^iunsel for the accused/appellants, r^j is concerned there is no evidence (ed without any evidence against him |of the accused/appellant in the crime frellant Shanti Bai is concerned, he |n the evidence that Shanti Bai in any [~^ ^Ra^ XI-HC-22 ^sr •3nqi?pi, (^itwre. f««'!^3< 3TT^T T?^f? 111CTI g,^j<^—-—•••—•—"—•—•••—•-'g^ 200 ^S^VI'""""""" 311^1'^il k-tt* snsgi '^HNi ^Fc^ 31I^?I WIIW ^teT ~> way assaulted deceased Rambha B,| <*t^[<rf<fl^ TTFi?lf ^ t^1'^ Tf^Rg'R ^'sri^nsii^i ai. He also urged that as per the 9. 10. evidence of witnesses that they saw the accused persons manhandling the body of Rambha Bai after her de^th therefore no offence was made out against Shanti Bai also. Shri A| accused/appellant Ramesh argued t| lok Pandey, counsel on behalf of lat so far as accused Ramesh is concerned, no club has been recov^red from him.Moreover evidence against him is that he was found be^ting the deceased after her death. P.W.-7 Jageshwar who is the son of d|eceased Rambha Bai and has been produced as the eye witness has ni|>t stated anything against accused Ramesh that he in any way assaulted |hedeceased. The further argument of both the counsel was that as per|the prosecutipn evidence the main allegations were against accused/a|ppellant Gopal who dragged the deceased in his house and assaulte|d. But accused Gopal has already died during the trial and ther^ is no evidence against the accused/appellants, therefore, they ar^ entitled for acquittal. On the other hand Shri U.N.S.Deo Agrawal, P.L. on behalf of the State Court. In order to appreciate the arguments we have perused the prosecution that at about 2.00 p.m. when he came to know about beating accused Gopal whereupon he went Shanti Bai, Gopal and his co-t towards accused/appellant Ramesh, the co-brother of Gopal and was pres learned G.A. with Shri Ravindra supported the judgment of the trial |advanced by the respective counsel evidence. P.W.-3 Neelambar has stated rettirned from the agricultural field, he (Maarp^et) of Rambha Bai in the house of |o the house of Gopal and saw that -brottier were beating. After indicating P.W.-3 Neelambar stated that he is int in the house of Gopal on the date [^t^ ^Ra^ XI-HC-22 ^^, ^1 "iTsa -'4l'lll<'l'l<, »Tilwi<«.itoi+iy Niticii fpirai '^ 200 I^^T' sn^r^ii 1^T?73T^i 9t)+liq) ^rf^l aii^r'FRnw^ifsa <- 'bllii'f^l-l WnvS'? fe^t <[»ltril< ^a'paqaii^r 1. n|at s|iop of incident. Accused/appellant Gopal other accused persons were assaultii|ig Bai was screaming and saying "Hey persons not to assault but they did When in the evening he came to a Gopal he came to know that Rambh^ aiso saw that Rambha Bai lying deaf ctoth on the lower part of the body o^ out of the body. Then they asked Bh4s report in the police station. was assaulting Rambha Bai and the her with club. Deceased Rambha i, Hey Dai". He asked the accused stop. He went backto his house. in front of the house of accused Bai has died.Kotwar Bhaggu Das 1 in the houseof Gopal. There was Rambha Bai and blood wasoozing iggu Das in the evening tolodgethe P.W.-5 Vasudeo Singh has stated th^t at about2.30-3.00 p.m. when he was returning from the field he cam^ to know that one woman is being beaten in the house ofGopal BaigaJ fhat Rambha Bai was lying and she| Gopal, his wife Shanti Bai and hisco^ whereupon he went there and saw wasunconscious. Accused persons brother Ramesh were having club in their hands and they were torturing R|ambha Bai. They were pressing chilli powder with the help of bamboo'clufcjs on which he asked them not to do so but they asked him not to interven^. At this he called village Kotwarand reported fhe matter in the police stati^in Gandai. When he sawthe body of Rambha Bai, the injuries on her bocjy were visible. The injuries were on head, hand and on all those portion^ with any cloth and the chilti powder the body and chilli powder was alsoi of the body which were not covered was present on almost every part of lying on the ground where Rambha Bai was lying and the matter was r^ported by the village Kotwar in the police station. / »•=' [•^^f^ XI-HC-22 "s^? -Lll'ill<'i<<, aflt'y'iio, («tcii'«y ^ j 3(T^9T 'VCSR W1MI tfrHI^ "W^ 200 IN^sr' 311^1 ^I h-u* s^v ab*< yiea 3?I^M '?^TT^R yl?a -^ ~7 ~ <shi<i1<n41'( Hi^cif ^ ft^ ^<^.K ^'dlpd'4 3D^I 1'2. 13. 14. He has also stated that Ramji was stated that the club article A-1 was in 3 club was lying there and article A-4| examination he has stated that he 4 Ramesh, Deoraj and one more accu^ with club. Accused/appellants Gopa| were engaged in Maarpeet & occulj Deoraj was sick and he did not as^ Accused Santosh had also not assaulted Rambha Baj with article A-! was broken and the broken piece Shanti Bai was holding Rambha Bs| powder. ^iot present there. He has further (he hand of Gopal, articte A-2 and A- |was lying on the door. In the cross- |aw accused/appellants Shanti Bai, jed person assaulting the deceased |, Shanti Bai, Santosh and Deoraj arts, Ramji was not present and ^ault Rambha Bai in his presence. assjaulted. Accused/appellant Ramesh -E club as a result of which the club jwas article A-3. Accused/appeltant with hair and was pressing chilli P.W.-7 Jaageshwar has stated that e| accused persons were attacking his next day accused/appellant Gopal dr^gged otherwise 1 will kill you" and he took the accused persons present in the| persons were accusing her mother pressed chilli powder in her mouth. day before thereto, of the incident, friother with lathi and sword and the his mother saying that "come her into his house and thereafter all Court assaulted her. The accused she is practicing witch craft and tdat P.W.-6 Dr. Ashok Khare who condu; the deceased has stated that on 2 | conducted the postmortem on the chilli powder was present on the bod^ in the eyes and mouth of Rambha Baj her face was nwnll'an Thd cheeks \A| tted the postmortem on the body of |August 1993 at about 4.00 p.m. he b|3dy of Rambha Bai and found that of deceased which was aiso found 1. There was redness in the eyes and tore bluish in colour. the hair of the [^ ^Fo<i XI-HC-22 •3'si -i||i(lcl'I<. tfri1^'!c. r»<'n!'a'i< 3TT^?T V ^mwi aiiiqi ^ 200 aii^CSFi Pt-ii'b 3n^?r WTWflftg 311^1 ^RIISR ^ifid -? ^i^iv.i^^ *i(i*ftfi ^ "f^st ^,r3t^t< ^; sipgit sii^i 15. 16. scalp were found uprooted/turn off ar] d there were contusions on the left shoutder in the size of 3x2", on the l^ft side of the breast in the size.of 2 x1". Injury on the right elbow in th4 size of %" x % x %", there was abrasion on theleft knee in the size <|if % x %", there was swelling on the occipital and parietal region. On interr); parietal and occipital region of the s| brairi membrane was congested and the brain. The blood clots were prese head. The throat andwind pipe w^s congested and there was chilli pQWder in the throat and wind pipe. lal examination he noticed that in the ^ull, clotted blood was present. The |iquid mixed with blood was found in |it in the perito occipital region ofthe plotted blood was found in the right chamber ofthe heart. All the injuries|were in blue contusions andall the injyrieswere anti mortem in nature. She died on account qfhead injuryas a result of hemorrhage. Theinjuries v^ere caused by hard and blunt object. Thescrutiny of the above evidencs r^veals that as far as accused Deoraj is concerned, there are no allegation^ against him that in any manner he participated in the crime in question jtherefore so far as the conviction of accused/appellant Deoraj under Sect|ons 148,302 and 302/149 oftheiPC is concerned same cannot be sustain^d. As far as involvement of accused/a|tipellants Shanti Bai and Ramesh is concerned, from the above evidenc^ persons took active participation ir| accused Gopal (since deceased). E\) the mouth and eyes of the decea| presence is established on the sceitie of occurrence as his name finds place in the First Information Report of occurrence has stated that accus^d/appellant Shanti Bai, Gopal (since [i^ifig^ it is evsdent that both the accused the crime in question along with en the chilli powder was pressed in sed and P.W.-3 Neelambar whose regarding his presence on the place XI-HC-22 •Svf ^qrqRTO, ^ftWS. l^fll^R '^' iwefT %i(ra> Wi 200 ^T^I' sii^r^i h-uv sf^v s^^icfi 'Hfsfl OT^si'ffRlIW :Hfer 3- "«<?pi*?Tqhimaf it fs^t •?N^[< ^?3lfigH 311^1 17. deceased) and Ramesh were assautf persuasion they did not stop. His e' |ing the deceased and even on his /idence is c.orroborated by P.W.-5 Vasudeo Singh. P.W.-7 Jageshwar sa|n/ accused Gopal dragging Rambha Bai into his house and other co-accusi P.W.-7Jageshwar has stated thatthei her to be a witeh and indulged in the above evidence, the arguments sd persons wer®also present there. had assaulted his mother doubtjng practice of witehcraft. In view of the of learned counsel for the accused/appellants that the deceas^d was being beaten by accused Shanti Bai after the degth of Rambha in view of the evidence of Dr. Khare were ante-mortem in nature. 3ai cannot beaccepted, particularly, |who has stated that alt the jnjuries PW-1 Champa Lal has stated that vj/hen he reached.he saw the chilli powder ori the nose and mouth of Rpmbha Bai and she was dead. He has further stated that Shanti Bai cam|e outofthe house and.assaulted on the body of Rambha Bai with club oiji which he said to Shanti Bai as to why she is assaulting the accused ojn which Ramesh said why are you caliing her as Shanti Bai. you shoulti call her "Jai Mata". He has also stated that all the accused persons evidence of PW-2 Bhagu Das. 18. i The evidence of these witnesses furfier stands corroborated by the fact that all the articles and the weapon place of occurrence. Moreover their ^vidence stands corroborated by the fact that as per the medical evidenc^ the chilli powder was found in the mouth, eyes and throat of the deceas smeared on the bamboo clubs whicji were recovered from the place of occurrence. ['tft^ ^r<5f^ were present there. Similar is the of offence were recovered from the ^d. Even the chilli powder was found T XI-HC-22 •^g ?qFiI?Tq, (^ftOT?. 'facmiy ^o. W<WI ^fiIftSS 200 i^s^ 311^1 ^iT K-U'h STR.'T i.ti+1 ^rf?^ sii^i'reiiwafea 10- ^Na'N iw<-il" 4 feT3t tfSrorc ^'a.iRnsii^t 19. 20. Nov/, coming to the argument of cour| that there is no evidence that she in a| presence of accused/appellants Shc where the crime in question was accused persons assaulted Rambha the house by accused Gopal (since PW-5 have clearly stated that Rambha Bai. |sel for accused/appellant Shanti Bai i^y way assaulted the deceased. The (nti Bai and Ramesh in the house c^mmitted is established and all the Pai after she was being taken inside [deceased) by dragging. PW-3 and Ramlesh and Shanti Bai also assauited Moreover, accused/appellants Sha iti Bai and Ramesh have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C.. Section 141 of the LP.C. defines the unlawful assemblyl which envisages that "an assembly of five or more persons is design^ted an 'unlawful assembly', if the commonobject ofthe persons compcjsing that assembly is— First-xxxxx xxxxx xxxxk Second-xxxxx xxxxx xxx^3< Third - To eommit any mis^hief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or j Fourth - xxxxx xxxxxx x(<xxxx Fifth - xxxxx xxxxxx )fxxxxx Explanation -— An assembl^ which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequentl^ become an unlawful assembly. Section 149 of the I.P.C. envisages tl[iat "If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in b^rosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the memb^rs of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of t(iat object, every person who, at the [tft^ ifa? + XI-HC-22 ~Sv3 -<||<<|d*l, IS'rt'l'y'lu. [ail-ll'My 3Tlt?T XRq? *11*<MI CSNI^ "WI, 200 fa'E^sT' sn^T^ l^iRTsn^i *"ich'?fe an^i •?(gwgf?g ,_, chi^f'?PlR 'ITIIT^if "^ 1^T^ <r:f!^*i!< ^? 3IPOT gn^l 21. Tlie time of the committing of that offence, is guilty of that offence." Section 1. vicarious liabitity invofving members of| in prosecution ofthe common objectot acts following such common object. the general rule that a person is liable) accountable for what others do, and liability under which a member of an u(>lawful an act committed by andther menlber circumstanees mentioned iri the sectioh. |s a member of the same assembly, }9 IPC enunciates the principle of |an uniawful assembly for acts done I that assembly or the consequential section engraves an exception to |for what he himself does and is not jays down the principle of vicarious assembly becomes liable for of the said assembly under achiek/e frdm In order tQ attract the provisipns of accused has the same object in view that they act as an assembly to of an assembly is to be ascertained members composing it, and from a circumstances. Itmay be gathered the members of the assembly. For the unlawfui assembly, the condud unlawful assembly, before and at the motive for the crime, are some of thi common object of the unlawful incident is essentially a question of fa| the nature of the assembly, the arm; behaviour of the members at or neai necessary under law that in all ca; unlawful commbn object, thesame S^ction 149 IPC it is enough if each knd their number is five or more and thatobject. Thecommonobject [from the acts and language of the ^onsideration of all the surrounding the course of conduct adopted by dejtermination of the common object of of each of the members of the ime ofthe attack and thereafter, the relevant considerations. What the is at a particular stage of the ;t to be determined, keeping in view i^ carried by the members, and the the scene of the incident. It is not ses of unlawful assembly, with an ihust be translated into action or be assetnbly [Tft^ ^f<3<i XI-HC-22 'S^t -i|l*lld<1, afli+i'is, («<wwy s^f^ "cpra? tllini (h»l|ch "^. 200 fcidciff' aiT^r^T k-U* 3V^S ^Rl°() ^~^i 311^1 ?^aiWHf?g k- •W'q^-qll ^H<1? ^ l^.t <f«l<-$« ^'d)Fd4 SD^T fuccessful". In the matter of Lalji V. S^ate of U.P. reported in 1989 (1} ^CC 437 the Hon'ble Apex Court observ^d that: "Common object of the unlawful 4 from the nature of the assemblyl the behaviour of the assembly ^ occurrence. it is an inference to and cireumstances of each case.'l ssembly can be gathered arms used by them and it or before the scene of se deduced from the facts 'he Apex Court while interpreting the t>rovisions of Section 149 of the .PC. in the matter of Chanda and ottiers V. Stateof U.P. & another eported in2004 AIR SCW 2954 held th^t: offenfce accomblish e< can "Section 149, IPC consists oftwoi section means that the prosecution of the common obj^t committed with a view to In order that the offence may fa| offence must be connected imm| object of the unlawful assembly member. Even if the offence prosecution of the commonobje^t yet fall under Section 141, if it was such as the members knew and this is what is required in| section, When an offence is the common object, it would geni| the members of the unlawful as^i be committed in prosecution of however, does not make the there may be cases which woul<p part but not within the first part. T]!' two parts of Section 149 cannot In every case it would be an whether the offence committed fdll was an offence such as the .to be tikely to be committed in p| object and falls within the second| Iparts. The first part of the to be committed in }ct must beone which is the common object. within the flrst part, the idiately with the common which the accused was dommitted is not in direct of the assembly, it may be held that the offence t/as likely to be committed the second part of this co|nmitted in prosecution of irally be an offence which jembly knew was likely to common object. That, c<>nverse prosecution true; come within the second Tlhe distinction between the |be ignored or obliterated. issue to be determined, within the first part or it of the assembly knew tosecutionof the common Ipart. However, there may fejlls meml|>ers be cases which would bc withiri the first pfart of tho offonooG [-q^^iWt XI-HC-22 'S^ -l-{MMit, wAv< , hwvy. 3n^?r ira^? WHCtT aiHlcfr •^ 200 fc|<i<itT" sffl^T'sn ft-li'b SD^T **< ^rfiTf sii^i's^nw'Hfta 5- cbi<i[d*ii') *iH<nl* ^ fe[st <rsi<^.t< ^sifigHsn^r 22. committed in prosecution of th^ be generally, if not always, offences which the parties the prosecution of the common common object would also witttin the second part, namely, kn^w to be likely committed in lobject." df bl Applying the above principle in view the case which has emerged from the| accused persons were doubting Rarrlbha witch, accused Gopal was a Pujari s|nd practice occult arts in order to treat from the various articles recovered frlom Trishul and photographs of Durga wefe Were doubting Rambha Bai to be Rambha Bai into his house and thet appellantsand other juvenile accused] number of injuries weresustained other parts of the body which has be< account of head injury. The above facts. circumstancesl accused/appellants show that the object to cause death of the deceas^c furtherance