& ANR. Vs. State of Kerala  INSC 669 (27 August 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL
NOS.1198-1199 OF 2005 Prathap & Anr. ... Appellants VERSUS State of Kerala
SINGH NIJJAR, J.
These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 28.6.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.
432 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2003 whereby the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein by confirming the judgment
of the trial court convicting and sentencing them under Section 302 and 149 of
the Indian Penal Code. By the same judgment, 1 their conviction under Section
120 (B) was set aside.
The appellants along with eight other persons were tried by the
Sessions Court, Kollam, in Sessions case no. 564/1999 for the offences
punishable under Section 114, 143, 147, 148, 120(B) & 302 read with Section
149 of Indian Penal Code. It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased
Kochukuttan and Murali (CW-11) had assaulted the appellants on 19.5.1997
"at 9.00 p.m. at a place at Chaithram Restaurant" run by the
appellant Devakumar @ Jayakumar. Seeking revenge, the two appellants, Rajeev
(A3) and Venu (A4) assembled at Chaithram Restaurant at Veliyam junction on
20.6.1997 at 7.45 p.m. and hatched a conspiracy to murder Kochukuttan. On
24.6.1997, all the ten accused in furtherance of a common object, armed with
deadly weapons such as swords, iron rods, chopper, knife and stick etc. came to
Chaithram Restaurant in a jeep KL-2B/9938.
jeep, which belonged to CW-16, was driven by Venu (A4). All the accused came
out of the jeep at a place in front of the restaurant. Accused Prathap
(hereinafter referred to as A1) and Rajeev (hereinafter referred to as A3) were
in the front whereas Padmachandran (A5) to Deepu (A10) followed behind them.
They came to a place in front of Harishree Bakers on the Eastern side of
Kottarakkara Oyoor Public Road at Veliyam junction at about 7.45 p.m. At that
time, the deceased was talking to PW-1 Hareendranathan.
Rajeev, called Kochukuttan by saying "Kochukuttan Come here".
Thereafter, appellant no. 1 Prathap (A1) assaulted the deceased with his sword
and caused an injury on his head. At the same time, appellant no. 2 (A2)
shouted "cut this man". He was also armed with a sword and made a cut
with the same on the side of the chest of the deceased. As a result of the
injuries, Kochukuttan fell down on the road on the side of 3 the verandah of
Harishree Bakers. Thereafter, Padmachandran (hereinafter referred to as A5),
Arjunan (hereinafter referred to as A6), Siddikishan (hereinafter referred to
as A7), Saji @ Sajith(hereinafter referred to as A8), Rajesh(hereinafter
referred to as A9) and Deepu(hereinafter referred to as A10) are alleged to
have inflicted various injuries with their weapons such as iron rods, chopper,
sword, knife and stick.
causing mortal injuries to Kochukuttan, the assailants left the place in the
same jeep in which they had arrived. The deceased was moved to the hospital
initially in a car driven by CW-14.
the lights of the car developed some problem and the deceased was transferred
to the jeep driven by CW-15. Kochukuttan succumbed to the injuries at 8.10 p.m.
on 24.6.1997. Upon completion of the investigation, the ten accused were put on
trial. The prosecution cited PW-1, PW-
and PW-5 to PW-10 as eye-witnesses. It is 4 noticed by the High Court that PW-6
to PW-10 were declared hostile as they did not fully support the prosecution
story. PW-3 was examined mainly to prove the criminal conspiracy which had been
hatched at the hotel of Chaithram owned by A2, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
873 of 2003 in the High Court. The trial court convicted A1, A2, A5, A6 and A7
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months. A1,
A2, A5, A6 and A7 were also convicted under Section 149 and sentenced to R.I.
for 1 year each. A1, A2 and A4 were also convicted of the offence under Section
120B IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years each. Accused A3 and A8 to A10 were
The two appellants herein challenged the aforesaid judgment by
filing Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2003 and 432 of 2003 before the High Court.
The other 5 accused persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 319/2003, 400/2004,
422/2003, 479/2003. State of Kerala preferred Criminal Appeal No. 901/2003
against the acquittal of 5 accused persons. All the appeals were heard together
by the High Court and decided by a common judgment dated 28.6.2004. The appeals
filed by the two appellants herein against the conviction and sentence under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC were dismissed. However, the
conviction of these two appellants under Section 120(B) was set aside.
appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of A3 and A8 to A10 were also
dismissed. At the same time, the appeals filed by accused no. 4, 5, 6 and 7
were allowed and their conviction as well as the sentence was set aside. These
two appeals have been filed by the two appellants against the judgment of the
High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 873 and 432 of 2003.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants
before the High Court have been reiterated before this Court. Learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, has submitted that the
presence of the eye- witnesses is doubtful. Even if the alleged eye- witnesses
were present, their evidence cannot be relied upon as it would have been
impossible to identify the assailants as the scene of occurrence was not a well
lit place. Assault which led to the death of Kochukuttan is alleged to have
taken place at about 7.45 P.M. At the relevant time, there was load shedding of
electricity in Kerala. On the date of the incident, the load shedding commenced
at about 7.30. P.M. Therefore, it would not have been possible to identify the
appellants. It would also not have been possible for the eye-witnesses to
notice the weapons which were allegedly used by all 7 members of the unlawful
assembly. Learned counsel further submitted that the eye-witnesses have failed
to state categorically as to which injury was caused by which appellant and
with which weapon. The learned counsel submitted that the eye-witnesses account
is highly suspicious.
the evidence of PW1, the learned counsel has submitted that the witness is the
brother-in-law of the deceased. He has been deliberately introduced by the
prosecution. If he was an actual witness to the incident, he would have tried
to save his brother-in-law and would have certainly received some injuries.
Apart from this, when the deceased was being moved to the hospital, this
witness did not accompany the deceased in the same car. According to the
learned counsel, the evidence of PW2, suffers from the same infirmities.
counsel further submitted that the High Court having acquitted all the accused
from the charge of criminal conspiracy, there was hardly any 8 evidence of
unlawful assembly or common object.
a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be recorded on the basis of such
the appellants could have been convicted under Section 304 IPC. In support of
the submissions, learned counsel has relied on three judgments of this Court,
viz., (2009) 12 SCC 757 Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 13 SCC 496 Another, (2004) 5 SCC
Learned counsel further submitted that in any event, the evidence
of the eye-witnesses cannot be believed as there was no identification parade
held by the investigating officer to identify the accused persons, who have
actually committed the offence.
further submitted by the learned counsel that 9 the identification of the
appellants in the Court is of no consequence as the appellants along with the
other co-accused had been shown to the witnesses in the police station. Their
weapons were also shown to the witnesses. As a result of these infirmities, the
co-accused of the appellants have been acquitted. Therefore, on the principle
of parity, the appellants also deserved the benefit of doubt. According to the
learned counsel, apart from the unsatisfactory identification of the
appellants, the case of the prosecution has not been supported by PW6 to PW10,
who were having shops in the neighbourhood at the junction where the assault
had taken place. Therefore, it was submitted that the very genesis of the
assault has not been proved.
On the other hand, Mr. R. Sathish, learned counsel appearing for
the State of Kerala submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court
has given concurrent findings. The evidence having been 10 appreciated twice,
by the trial court as also the High Court, does not leave any iota of doubt as
to the involvement of the appellants in the murder of the deceased. He has
submitted that the first information report was registered on the basis of the
first information statement given by the brother-in- law of the deceased, PW1
very soon after the incident. The consistent story given by PW1 was fully
corroborated by the eye-witnesses account of the PW2. The conspiracy has been
duly proved by the evidence of PW3. He has further submitted that the submission
of the learned counsel with regard to the place of assault being not properly
lit is factually incorrect because the Veliyam junction where the murder took
place is a very busy place and well lit throughout the night. Learned counsel
further submitted that the injuries which caused the death of Kochukuttan have
been specifically pointed out by the medical evidence in the inquest report as
also in the postmortem report. Coming to 11 the evidence with regard to the
identification of the appellants, learned counsel submitted that any
infirmities in not holding the identification parade would be totally
irrelevant in case of the appellants as they were previously well known to PW1
and PW2. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 has been duly corroborated by the evidence
of other eye-witnesses PW4 and PW5. So far as the submissions with regard to
the non-identification of the weapons and the non-attribution of the particular
injuries to the appellants, learned counsel submitted that their participation
is such that they would not be entitled to the benefit of the very limited
exception which is permissible to a by-stander in a charge under Section 149
IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that this is a clear case of enmity as
the deceased and CW-11 had attacked appellants on the night before the murder.
With regard to the load shedding, learned counsel has submitted that the entire
assault incident took place within a span 12 of 3 to 4 minutes. It is alleged
to have commenced at 7.25 P.M. and would have been over by 7.28.
load shedding if any does not commence till after 7.30 p.m. Even otherwise, it
is submitted that on the fateful night of 24.6.1997, it was a moonlight night,
therefore, it would not be a case of complete darkness at night.
We have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel. The High Court in the impugned judgment has clearly
observed that the identity of the deceased and the place of occurrence etc. are
not disputed in this case. Postmortem of the dead body of Kochukuttan was
conducted by PW-18 at 11.40 a.m. on 25.6.1997. Ex. P17 is the postmortem
certificate which shows that there are 20 ante mortem injuries. PW-16 has
opined that the death was due to injuries sustained to the chest and left palm,
that is, injuries No. 14 to 20 and death can 13 also be due to the cumulative
effect of all the injuries. Both the Courts have concluded that the medical
evidence is consistent with the eye- witnesses account given by PW-1, PW-2,
PW-4 and PW-5. As noticed above, PW-6 to PW-10 although cited as eye-witnesses
were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution.
The trial court formulated 5 points for consideration, which are
as follows:- 1) Whether the death of Kochukuttan was because of the injuries
sustained in the occurrence? 2) Whether the accused persons had inflicted
injuries on deceased? 3) Whether the accused persons A1 to A4 had conspired
together to cause the murder of deceased Kochukuttan? 4) What offence, if any,
accused persons had committed? 5) Regarding sentence? 14 On point no. 1, the
trial court concluded on the basis of the findings in the inquest report as
inquest on the dead body of deceased was conducted by PW19, sub inspector on
the morning on 25.6.1997 at the District Hospital on the direction given by the
Circle Inspector, Kottarakara and Ext.P20 is the inquest report prepared by
PW.19. In Ext.P20, PW.19 had noted the injuries found on the dead body.
Ext.P20, the cause of death is due to the injury sustained by beating, stabbing
and cutting. In Ext.P20, it is stated that as per the information received, the
injuries were inflicted on the deceased by A1, A2 and others due to their
animosity against deceased Kochukuttan. Ext.P17 is the postmortem certificate
prepared by PW16, doctor who has conducted the postmortem examination on the
dead body of the deceased. In Ext.P17, 20 ante mortem injuries are noted on the
body of the deceased and the cause of death stated in Ext.P17 `due to the
injury sustained to the chest and left palm'."
In the post mortem report (Ex.P17), the following injuries were
noticed on the deceased:- 1) Incised wound 4.5x2 cm skin deep oblique
reflecting a flap backwards on the left side of face, the upper outer and being
4 cm in front of ear.
Incised wound 5x1 cm bone deep obliquely placed on the left side of head the
lower inner and being 9 cm outer to midline 6 cm.
Abrasion 2x1 cm on the left side of forehead 2 cm outer to midline and 2 cm
Incised wound 3.5 x 0.5 cm bone deep obliquely placed on the left side of back
of head the lower inner and being 5 cm outer to midline and 18 cm above root of
Incised punctured wound 3 x 1 x 9 cm.
on the right side of root of neck, the lower inner blunt and being 10 cm below
right ear. The upper outer and was sharply cut. The wound was directed downwards,
forwards and the left through the muscle plane.
Incised punctured wound 2.5x1x6.5 cm oblique on the right side of root of neck,
its lower inner blunt end being 2 cm, above the injury No. 5. The upper outer
end was sharply cut. The wound was directed downwards, forwards and the left
through the muscle plane.
Abraded contusion 2 c 1.5x05 cm. On the front of right shoulder 2 cm inner to
Incised wound 1.8x0.5 skin deep obliquely placed on the right side of front of
neck, the lower inner and being 5 cm outer to midline 2.5 cm. Above collar
Lenior abrasion 7.5 cm. long oblique on the outer front and cuter aspect of
right arm the lower inner and being 9 cm. above elbow.
Incised wound 7 x 02 x 10 oblique on the outer aspect of right arm the lower
inner and being 9 cm above elbow.
Lacerated wound 0.8x0.8x1.5 cm on the outer aspect of right arm 0 cm above
Lacerated wound 1x1 cm bone deep on the outer aspect of right arm 2 cm above
the humerus was found fractured 4 cm above elbow.
Abrasion 1.5x1 cm. on the outer aspect of right elbow.
Incised wound 10x1.5x2 cm obliquely placed on the left palm the lower outer and
was in the web space in between the middle and ring finger. Underneath the
muscle tendon and vessels were found sharply cut.
Incised wound 2.5x05 cm skin deep on the back of left ring finger 4 cm. below
Incised wound 8x3x3 cm horizontal on the back and outer aspect of left forearm,
9 cm below elbow, underneath the muscles, the radius bone was found cut and
Incised wound 9x3.5 cm skin deep at its upper part and 3 cm deep at its lower
part oblique with tailing upwards, on front of left 17 side of chest, the lower
inner and being
outer to middle and 9.5 cm below the upper end of sternum.
Incised wound 11x1.5x0.5 cm oblique on the right side of back of trunk, the
lower inner and being 11.5 cm outer to midline 4 cm below root of neck.
Incised wound 2.5x1 cm skin deep oblique on the back of right side of trunk,
the lower inner end being 11.5 cm outer to midline 9 cm below root of neck.
Incised penetrating wound 2.5x1 cm obliquely placed on the back of left side of
trunk, the lower inner sharply cut end was
outer to midline and 7 cm below root of neck. The outer end of the wound showed
splitting of the skin. The chest cavity was scan penetrated through the Vth
intercostal space, after cutting the upper border of the Vth rib. The upper
lobe of the back aspect of the lung was scan punctured 2x05x4 cm.
chest cavity contained 300 ml. of fluid blood. The track of the wound was
directed downwards and forwards to the right. The total minimum depth of the
wound was 14 cms."
The trial court also noticed that PW-16, the doctor, who conducted
the postmortem examination, stated "that the death was due to the injuries
sustained to the chest and the left palm, that is, injuries no. 14 to 20".
These injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons such as sword or chopper.
Thus, the inquest report (Ex.P20) and the postmortem report (Ex.P17) would
clearly show that Kochukuttan died as a result of the injuries sustained in the
fatal assault by the appellants and the other co- accused.
The trial court on the basis of evidence given by the
eye-witnesses concluded that the participation in the assault by appellants
herein is proved beyond doubt. The conspiracy was held to be proved on the
basis of the evidence given by PW3. On the basis of the findings, the trial
court convicted the two appellants along with the other co-accused as noticed
The High Court on a re-examination of the entire body of the
evidence has also concluded that the ocular evidence of PW1 cannot be discarded
simply on the ground that he is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The High
Court has also held that there is clear evidence that both the appellants had
participated and formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the
murder of the deceased. The High Court, therefore, found that there is clear
evidence with regard to the appellants having committed the offence under
Section 149 IPC.
A perusal of the evidence of PW1 leaves no manner of doubt about
the entire sequence of events. He has graphically recounted the arrival of the
assailants in the jeep. He even gave the sequence and the order in which they
had advanced towards Kochukuttan. He has stated in categoric terms that 20 he
had known the appellants herein for a number of years. He had seen the others
in the vicinity and at the Veliyam junction. He has categorically stated about
the participation of both the appellants. He has named both the appellants in
the first information statement. He has given a graphic account of the injuries
caused by both the appellants. He has also narrated how the accused went away
in the jeep after inflicting mortal injuries on the deceased. He also talks
about the load shedding which according to him commenced from 7.30 p.m. He
further narrated that the car in which the injured Kochukuttan was being taken
had developed electrical problem and that the deceased had to be removed to a
jeep. He has categorically stated that by reason of enmity, A1 and A2 together
have murdered his brother-in-law. He identified the weapons wielded by the
appellants. He could also recognize the apparels worn by the accused with clear
distinction. In his examination, he also stated 21 that the incident was
clearly seen in the street light and light of the nearby shops. He stated that
at that time, 3 bulbs were glowing over the shop where the incident happened.
There was also Mercury Street light. The incident could be seen clearly. He
also stated that the vicious assault was the result of instigation of A2. This
witness was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has stated
that deceased Kochukuttan was a Marxist party worker. He reiterated that he has
stated before the police that A1 had taken a sword which was concealed at the
back of his waist and had stabbed at the left side of the head of the deceased.
went on to say that A2 also stabbed Kochukuttan on the left side of his chest
pursuant to which the deceased had fallen down to the road from the cement
thinna. Such deposition of PW1 also gets strength from the seizure of MOs Nos.
13 and 14, i.e., portion of blood stained cement and portion of removed cement
without 22 blood respectively. He also reiterated that he had narrated the acts
done by each and every accused.
reiterated that he is able to identify all the accused persons. In the
cross-examination, he seems to have further strengthened the case of the
prosecution. While answering the numerous questions posed by the defence
counsel, he elaborated that there was previous enmity between the deceased and
the accused persons. So there was clear motive for the appellants to assault
the deceased. He also stated that the police had not recorded the version as he
had narrated. He had definitely told the police about the signs for
identification of the accused. He admitted that all the accused were not the
residents of the place of occurrence. However, the appellants herein were
certainly local residents. He even went on to narrate that the deceased told
him about 2 weeks ago that the appellants had attempted to kill him through
hired people. He categorically states in 23 the cross-examination that the
entire incident of assault took 3 minutes. He also stated that the deceased
used to go to the junction quite regularly by about 7.00 p.m. and he would
usually go home by 9 p.m.
In our opinion, the trial court as well as the High Court
correctly relied upon the unflinching, coherent and consistent evidence given
evidence given by PW1 has been corroborated by PW2 in every material particular.
From the above narration, it becomes apparent that the submission with regard
to the scene of crime not being well lit is without any substance. Similarly,
the criticism with regard to the identification parade not having been held is
of no consequence. PW1 and PW2 have clearly stated that the appellants herein
were previously known to them. PW1 certainly even knew about the previous
enmity between the deceased and the appellants.
We see no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
The weapons used by the appellants and the injuries caused have been
specifically mentioned by PW1 and PW2. There were 20 ante mortem injuries on
the deceased. Recoveries of the swords used by them were made at the instance
of the appellants. Recoveries of other weapons, clothes worn by the accused on
the day of the assault were also made at the instance of the other accused. As
stated above, medical evidence also leads to the conclusion that the death has
resulted from the injuries caused by the appellants and the other accused with
their respective weapons. In view of the proven facts, in this case as noticed
by the trial court, the High Court and by us above, it becomes evident that the
appellants had acted with a common object to eliminate the deceased.
Court delineated the circumstances in which constructive liability can be
fastened on the accused, in 25 SCC 85, wherein it was observed:
Common object, as contemplated by Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, does
not require prior concert or meeting of minds before the attack. Generally no
direct evidence is available regarding the existence of common object which, in
each case, has to be ascertained from the attending facts and circumstances.
When a concerted attack is made on the victim by a large number of persons
armed with deadly weapons, it is often difficult to determine the actual part
played by each offender and easy to hold that such persons who attacked the
victim had the common object for an offence which was known to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of such an object. It is true that a mere innocent
person, in an assembly of persons or being a bystander does not make such
person a member of an unlawful assembly but where the persons forming the
assembly are shown to be having identical interest in pursuance of which some
of them come armed, others though not armed would, under the normal
circumstances, be deemed to be the members of the unlawful assembly.
case the accused persons have been proved to be on inimical terms with the
complainant party. The enmity between the parties had been aggravated on
account of litigation with respect to the dispute over the mango trees. Accused
persons who came on the spot are shown to have come armed with deadly weapons.
The facts and circumstances of the case unequivocally prove the existence of
the common object of such persons forming the unlawful assembly who had come on
the spot and attacked the complainant party in consequence of which three
precious lives were lost. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding
that the accused persons, involved in the occurrence, had shared the common
supplied) The aforesaid proposition was further reiterated in the case of 26
"8. The pivotal question is applicability of Section 149 IPC. The said
provision has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua
non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common
intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable
unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and
that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an
unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the
help of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly
consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one
or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid
down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against
a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be
said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he
should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit
any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141."
In the present case we are unable to accept the submission that
the appellants were perhaps unaware that the murderous assault, intended to be
committed by them, would, in all probability, cause the death of Kochukuttan.
We have earlier noticed that both the trial court as well as the High Court
have considered the specific injuries caused by the appellants with swords.
noticed above, there were 20 ante mortem injuries on the deceased. According to
the opinion of the doctor, the 27 death was due to injuries caused on the chest
and on the left palm. It is further observed that the death could also have
resulted from the cumulative effect of all other injuries. Therefore, there is
no manner of doubt that Kochukuttan died as a result of injures caused by the
appellants along with the other accused.
We also do not find any substance in the submission of the Learned
Counsel of the appellant that since all the other co-accused have been
acquitted; on the ground of parity the appellants herein also deserve to be
acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had
been acquitted from those who had been convicted. Both the Courts below have
applied the aforesaid principle in distinguishing the case of the appellants
herein from those who have been acquitted.
any doubt we may emphasize that the appellants herein were known to be
associates of the deceased. They had previous social interaction. For some time
they had been having differences of opinion. This 28 had led to an assault by
the deceased and his companion Murali (CW11) on the appellants herein, namely,
Prathap (A1) and Devakumar (A2). Consequently the appellants herein had wanted
to settle the score with the deceased.
a clear motive. This apart, PW1 and PW2 not only identified the appellants
herein as assailants with swords but also indicated the injuries inflicted by
them on the deceased. On the other hand the accused persons who had been
acquitted were not known to PW1 and PW2. In fact PW1 in the evidence had
categorically admitted that the other accused were not from the locality but
were sometimes seen at the Veliyam Junction.
In our opinion the Courts below rightly declined to acquit the
appellants on the principle of parity. The power of the Courts to distinguish
the cases of one or more of the accused(s) from the other(s) is far too well
recognized to need reiteration. Still, we may notice the principle as stated in
the case of Gangadhar Behera 29 Court observed as follows:
if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is
sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number
of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty
of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated
from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused
notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove
guilt of other accused persons."
our opinion the trial court as well as the High Court rightly convicted the
appellants as the facts and circumstances of the case unequivocally prove the
existence of the common object of the appellants. They had come looking for
Kuchukuttan armed with deadly weapons with the intention of causing grievous
bodily injuries. There was a preplanned attack. They located him and caused
serious injuries with swords, choppers and other weapons, which led to his
death. Thus they were rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under
Section 302/149 IPC.
We are also of the considered opinion that the concurrent views
taken by the trial court as also the High Court cannot be said to be either
clearly illegal or manifestly erroneous and do not call for any interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.
..................................J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]
...................................J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
AUGUST 27, 2010.