Case: State Of A.P Vs. Thakkidiram Reddy

be one of the tests to prove that he shared the common object, but it is not the sole test. Coming now to the present case, the fact that at the dead of night a mob of persons armed with various weapons forcibly trespassed into the house of the deceased after breaking open the door, clearly indicates that they had formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit some offence and each of them would be liable for the offence committed or knew likely to be committeed by any of the members of the mob. To ascertain what was the common object of the above unlawful assembly, we will advert later. Suffice it to say, at this stage, that in the facts and circumstances of this case the six accused (with whom only we are concerned in these appeals) would be guilty for the offence committed by any other member of the mob, in furtherance of the common object, without proof of any overt act committed by them. We do not, however, wish to dilate on this aspect of the matter any further as we find the second ground canvassed by the High Court that the ocular evidence regarding overt acts committed by A2 to A5 and A9 is not supported by medical evidence, is factually incorrect. 18. As stated earlier the deceased sustained 10 injuries (details of which we will refer to at later stage) including lacerations and abrasions and the doctor opined that all those injuries could be caused by hard and blunt weapon like crow-bar or stick. As regards the four injured, we get from the evidence of P.W.14 that P.W. 1 sustained four injuries, P.W. 2 and P.W.3 two each and G. Narsimha Reddy, six. He opined that injury Nos. 1 and 6 found on the person of Narsimha Reddy were grievous in nature and all other injuries on his person and the injuries found on the persons of the three witnesses were simple in nature. He further opined that the injuries could be caused by blunt weapon like stick. The injuries found on the person of the deceased as also the four injured fit in with the version of the eye witnesses regarding the manner of assault by A1 to A5 and A9 and we are at loss to understand how the High Court concluded that the medical evidence did not corroborate their evidence. 19. The next question that requires an answer is what was the common object of the unlawful assembly. Both the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that considering the nature of the injuries inflicted by the miscreants upon the deceased, it could not be said that their common object was to commit the murder. According to the learned Counsel, even if the entire prosecution case was believed the only inference that could be drawn was that the accused persons were guilty only of the offence under Section 325 for causing grievous hurt with blunt weapons, read with Section 149 IPC. To appreciate this contention raised on behalf of the appellants it will be necessary to refer to the injuries sustained by the deceased. PW 12, who held the post mortem examination upon the deceased stated that he found the following external injuries on his person : "1. Laceration left cheek 3"x1"x".2. Abrasion left shoulder 2"x1".3. Lacertain right leg 1"x1"x"4. Three abrasions on the left leg each 1"x1"5. Laceration right frontal area 5"x"x".6. Laceration right parietal area 6"x1"x1"7. Laceration occipital area 4"xx".8. Abrasions left lower chest 1"x1". So far as internal injuries are concerned he stated that on examination of the skull, he found fractures on the right temporal bone, partietal bone and occipital bone and the total length of the fracture was 7". He further stated that subarachnoid haemorrhage was present. He opined that the head injury alone was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. 20. If the injuries were to be considered in isolation we might have persuaded ourselves to give a second thought to the above submission of the learned Counsel but when the injuries are considered in the context of the facts, that there was bitter enmity between the parties, that at an unearthly hour the miscreants armed with various weapons like crow-bars and sticks trespassed into the house of the deceased after breaking open the door, dragged him out of the bed room to the front yard and beat him to death, and that whoever came to his rescue was beaten up, the only conclusion that can be drawn was that they formed the unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of the deceased and as soon as their objective was achieved they left the place. 21. It was also contended by Mr. Arunachalam that since, admittedly, the injury inflicted by A1 caused the death of the deceased and the injuries inflicted by others on his person were simple in nature, it could not be conclusively said that A2 to A5 and A9 shared with A1 a common object to commit the murder. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, committing the murder was the individual act of A1 and not in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly. We are unable to accept the above contention for the reasons mentioned earlier. That apart, the manner in which the incident took place clearly proves that even if we were to assume that A2 to A5 and A9 did not share the common object of committing the murder, they, being members of the unlawful assembly certainly knew that the murder was likely to be committed by A1 in prosecution of the common object so as to make them liable under Section 302 read with the second part of Section 149 IPC. In either view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in acquitting A2 to A5 and A9 of the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Viewed in the context of the above observations of this court we are unable to hold that the accused persons were in any way prejudiced due to the errors and omissions in the charges pointed out by Mr. Arunachalam. Apart from the fact that this point was not agitated in either of the Courts below, from the fact that the material prosecution witnesses (who narrated the entire incident) were cross examined at length from all possible angles and the suggestions that were put forward to the eye witnesses we are fully satisfied that the accused persons were not in any way prejudiced in their defence. While on this point we may also mention that in their examination under Section 313 of the Code, the accused persons were specifically told of their having committed offences (besides others) under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. For all these reasons we reject the threshold contention of Mr. Arunachalam.12. Coming now to the facts of the case, it cannot be gainsaid that since the incident took place in the house of the deceased at the dead of night, PWs. 1, 2 and 3, who were members of his household, were the most natural and probable witnesses. Further, the injuries sustained by them in that night leaves no room for doubt that they were present when the incident took place. As regards P.Ws. 4 and 5, their claim that they saw the incident cannot also be doubted for they were the next door neighbours of the deceased. The evidence of the above five witnesses, so far as it relates to the manner in which the incident took place is consistent and cogent and does not suffer from anyall these materials on record it must be said that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that on the fateful night a mob armed with crow- bars, sticks and other weapons forcibly entered into the house of the deceased, killed him and injured four members of his family who came to his rescue, areis of course true that there are some contradictions in between their statements made in Court and before the police during investigation. Both the Courts below found those contradictions minor and of no moment; and having gone through them we are in complete agreement with the views so expressed.14. As noticed earlier, the High Court, while relying upon the evidence of the above witnesses to uphold the conviction of A1, rejected their evidence qua the other accused, only so far as it related to their convictions under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC on the grounds, that without strict proof of their specific overt acts they could not be convicted for the above offences only on the omnibus statements of the five eye witnesses about their culpability and that their testimony regarding the overt acts of the other accused was not supported by the medical evidence. In our considered view, none of the ground can be sustained.From the above judgments of this Court it is evident that to ascertain whether a particular person shared the common object of the unlawful assembly it is not essential to prove that he committed some illegal overt act or had been guilty of some illegal omission in pursuance of the common object. Once it is demonstrated from all the facts and circumstances of a given case that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of which some offence was committed - or he knew was likely to be committed - by any other person, he would be guilty of that offence. Undoubtedly, commission of an overt act by such a person would be one of the tests to prove that he shared the common object, but it is not the sole test. Coming now to the present case, the fact that at the dead of night a mob of persons armed with various weapons forcibly trespassed into the house of the deceased after breaking open the door, clearly indicates that they had formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit some offence and each of them would be liable for the offence committed or knew likely to be committeed by any of the members of the mob. To ascertain what was the common object of the above unlawful assembly, we will advert later. Suffice it to say, at this stage, that in the facts and circumstances of this case the six accused (with whom only we are concerned in these appeals) would be guilty for the offence committed by any other member of the mob, in furtherance of the common object, without proof of any overt act committed by them. We do not, however, wish to dilate on this aspect of the matter any further as we find the second ground canvassed by the High Court that the ocular evidence regarding overt acts committed by A2 to A5 and A9 is not supported by medical evidence, is factually incorrect.If the injuries were to be considered in isolation we might have persuaded ourselves to give a second thought to the above submission of the learned Counsel but when the injuries are considered in the context of the facts, that there was bitter enmity between the parties, that at an unearthly hour the miscreants armed with various weapons like crow-bars and sticks trespassed into the house of the deceased after breaking open the door, dragged him out of the bed room to the front yard and beat him to death, and that whoever came to his rescue was beaten up, the only conclusion that can be drawn was that they formed the unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of the deceased and as soon as their objective was achieved they left theare unable to accept the above contention for the reasons mentioned earlier. That apart, the manner in which the incident took place clearly proves that even if we were to assume that A2 to A5 and A9 did not share the common object of committing the murder, they, being members of the unlawful assembly certainly knew that the murder was likely to be committed by A1 in prosecution of the common object so as to make them liable under Section 302 read with the second part of Section 149 IPC. In either view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in acquitting A2 to A5 and A9 of the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.