# Prakash Pasi v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 1202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2117 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakash-pasi-v-state-of-u-p-48399
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Ms.
Smiti
Sahai,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate

A. Recovery not made at the pointing out of the
accused. Rather had been made on the basis of
the statement given by the accused to the I.O.
while he was confined in jail. Has no values in
the eyes of law.

B. Child witness- it is a rule of practical wisdom
than law that the testimony of a child witness
be appreciated with caution and must be relied
upon when it is corroborated by other evidence
because a child can easily be swayed or tutored
by others. Conviction can be based on the sole
evidence of hostile witness provided it is
trustworthy and inspires confidence of the court
after considering all the facts and circumstances
of the case.

C. The circumstantial evidence brought on
record must be strong enough to point out
towards the culpability of the accused and
accused alone in committing the offence.

Appeal is allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovery of the country made pistol is not
evidenced by any member of the public
even though it is not a chance recovery but
is alleged to be on a disclosure made by
accused while in police custody; secondly,
the weapon recovered has not been
forensically connected with the bullets
recovered from the body of the deceased;
and, thirdly, the alleged recovery is from an
open place not under the control or in
possession of the appellant no.2 therefore,
weapon cannot be said to be in possession
of the appellant-Rajesh so as to justify his
conviction under Section 25 of the Arms
Act. Consequently, the conviction of the
appellant-Rajesh under Section 25 Arms
Act is also liable to be set aside.

39. For all the foregoing reasons, the
appeal
succeeds
and
is,
accordingly,
allowed. The impugned judgment and
order of the trial court in the two connected
trials is hereby set aside. The appellants are
acquitted of the charge for which they have
been tried and convicted by the court
below. The appellants, if in jail, shall be set
at liberty forthwith, unless wanted in any
other case, subject to compliance of section
437 A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the court
below.

40. Let a copy of this order and the
lower court record be sent to the trial court
for information and compliance.
----------
(2022)04ILR A1202
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2117 of 2008
Prakash Pasi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jaikaran

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ms.
Smiti
Sahai,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate

A. Recovery not made at the pointing out of the
accused. Rather had been made on the basis of
the statement given by the accused to the I.O.
while he was confined in jail. Has no values in
the eyes of law.

B. Child witness- it is a rule of practical wisdom
than law that the testimony of a child witness
be appreciated with caution and must be relied
upon when it is corroborated by other evidence
because a child can easily be swayed or tutored
by others. Conviction can be based on the sole
evidence of hostile witness provided it is
trustworthy and inspires confidence of the court
after considering all the facts and circumstances
of the case.

C. The circumstantial evidence brought on
record must be strong enough to point out
towards the culpability of the accused and
accused alone in committing the offence.

Appeal is allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs St. of Mah.
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 626

2. Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11
SCC 195

3. Ranjeet Kumar Ram @Ranjeet Kumar Das Vs
St. of Bihar 2015 SCC Online SC 500
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been
preferred by the sole appellant/convict
Prakash Pasi against the judgment and
4 All. Prakash Pasi Vs. State of U.P.
1203
order
dated
14.08.2008
passed
by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6,
Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 276 of
2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short
"I.P.C."), Police Station Badokhar, District
Raebareli, convicting the appellant with life
imprisonment coupled with a fine of
Rs.2000/-.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of
this appeal in short are:-

An F.I.R. was registered at case
crime no. 78 of 2006, under Section 302
IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District
Raebareli on the basis of written report
presented by Km. Khushboo. It was
described in the written report that the
father of the complainant had gone to
Etawah for doing work as labourer on
brick-kiln. She was in the house along with
her mother and younger brother Mukesh.
On 22.05.2006 at about 11 A.M. her mother
was chopping vegetables sitting on a Cot in
the Court-yard under the thatch. Her
neighbour Prakash Pasi, who left the
village along with his family since the
festival of Holi, came there and started
chatting with her mother sitting on the
same cot. Her mother asked her to bring the
chilies and her younger brother went to
play in the field. When she came back after
taking chilies from the shop of Ravi, she
found that her mother was lying soaked in
blood by the side of the cot and Prakash
was not there. She raised cry, then some
people of the neighbourhood came there
and found her mother dead. Her throat was
slit. Prakash had killed her mother due to
old enmity.

3. After investigation charge sheet
was submitted in the Court against the
appellant/convict under Section 302 IPC.
The concerned Magistrate after taking
cognizance on the charge sheet committed
the case to the Court of Sessions, for trial.

4. The Sessions Court framed charge
under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied
the crime and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution examined six witnesses in toto
to prove its story and also proved the
relevant documents Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka14. The witnesses produced include:-

(a) P.W. 1- Km. Khushboo, the
complainant and daughter of the deceased;

(b) P.W.2- Dinesh Singh, a
witness of extra judicial confession made
by the appellant/convict;

(c) P.W. 3- Kunjan, the husband
of the deceased;

(d) P.W. 4- Dr. Sayyad Altaf
Hussain, who conducted post-mortem on
the cadaver of the deceased;

(e) P.W. 5-Constable Amar Pal,
who prove the registration of FIR and;

(f) P.W. 6- Anirudh Kumar Singh,
S.H.O, who investigated the crime.

The Exhibits include:-

(I) Ext. Ka-1- written report;

(II)
Ext.
Ka-2-
post-morten
report;

(III) Ext. Ka-3- Chik FIR;

(IV) Ext. Ka-4- concerned G.D.;

(V) Ext. Ka-5- Site-plan;

(VI)
Ext.
Ka-6-
memo
of
collection of blood stained and plain soil
from the spot of crime;

(VII) Ext. Ka-7- inquest-report;

(VIII) Ext. Ka-8- report of
Investigating Officer for conducting postmortem,

(IX) Ext. Ka-9- Photo ''Nash';

(X) Ext. Ka-10- Police Form No.
13;

(XI) Ext. ka-11- letter to ChiefMedical-Officer for post-mortem;
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(XII) Ext. Ka-12- recovery memo
of weapon of offence;

(XIII) Ext. Ka-13- charge-sheet;

(XIV) Ext. Ka-14- site-plan of the
place from where the weapon of offence
was recovered.

5. After completion of prosecution
evidence,
the
statement
of
the
appellant/convict under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.) was recorded, wherein he denied
the crime and stated that witnesses have
deposed falsely. He had also stated that he
was implicated in the crime falsely at the
behest of one Shiv Sagar, the resident of the
same village, who has terror in the village
and his brother was I.G. in police. Shiv
Sagar had murdered his (convicts) brother,
thereafter the appellant/convict along with
his family members left the village. The
complainant and his family implicated him
in the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar. He
examined
Vinod
Kumar,
as
defence
witness, who is also scribed the written
report.

6. After completion of evidence,
hearing the arguments of both the sides and
analyzing the evidence learned Trial Court
reached at conclusion that on the day of
incident the appellant/convict Prakash Pasi
reached the house of the deceased. Before
incident,
they
both
(appellant
and
deceased) were chatting sitting on the same
cot in the Court-yard of the deceased,
where she was chopping vegetables. The
daughter of the deceased has proved this
fact that when Prakash was in the house,
her mother sent her to bring chilies and
when she came back after taking chilies she
found, her mother was lying dead soaked in
the blood. The time-gap between the
incident and presence of Prakash at the spot
was so short that to presume that somebody
else might have committed the crime, is not
possible. Km. Khushboo proved that when
she left the house for purchasing chilies,
both the deceased and Prakash were alive
and present in her house and when she
came after half an hour, she found her
mother dead and Prakash was not there.
Hence, the circumstances are indicating
that in all probabilities the crime was
committed by the appellant/convict.

7. Learned Trial Court held the
appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and
punished
accordingly
with
life
imprisonment coupled with a fine of
Rs.2000/-.
Being
aggrieved
of
this
conviction, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.

8. Heard Sri Jaikaran, learned counsel
for the appellant/convict, Ms. Smiti Sahai,
learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State respondent
and perused the material brought on record.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant/convict argued that there is no
direct evidence of the crime and the case is
based on circumstantial evidence. P.W.1-
Km. Khushboo (the complainant and
daughter of the deceased) was a child of
only nine years at the time of incident and
she did not even witness the crime. She has
stated only that she saw Prakash Pasi
(appellant/convict) in the house along with
her mother and she went to purchase chilies
upon asking of her mother and when she
came back, she found her mother lying
besides the cot soaked in the blood and her
throat
was
slit
and
Prakash
(appellant/convict) was absent. He further
argued
that
no
other
witness
has
corroborated the presence of Prakash in the
house of the deceased before the incident.
The recovery of weapon was not made at
4 All. Prakash Pasi Vs. State of U.P.
1205
the pointing out of the appellant/convict
rather it has been made on the basis of the
statement given by the appellant to the
Investigating Officer while he was confined
in jail. The appellant/convict has stated in
his statement that he has been implicated in
the crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar, who
is a strong man of the village and has terror
in the minds of people of village. The
appellant/convict has already left the
village along with his entire family due to
his fear after the murder of his brother by
Shiv Sagar. He further argued that the
appellant/convict has no concern with the
crime, as such, he should be acquitted.

10. On the other hand learned A.G.A.
submitted
that
the
presence
of
the
appellant/convict in the house of the
deceased, just half an hour before the incident
has been proved by P.W. 1- Km. Khshboo,
the daughter of the deceased. The time gap
between when P.W. 1 went to purchase
chilies leaving the appellant Prakash in her
house and came back from there and found
her mother dead, was very short, so there was
no possibility of being committed the murder
by
someone
else,
except
the
appellant/convict. Learned A.G.A. further
submitted that knife used in the crime was
recovered by the Investigating-Officer on the
basis of the statement of appellant/convict
from a pond and that knife was recognized by
the son of the deceased as the knife used for
chopping the vegetables in his house. It has
been further submitted that circumstantial
evidence is strong enough to hold the
appellant guilty of the crime and convict
accordingly, as such, the appeal should be
dismissed.

11. Considered the rival submissions
and perused the original record as well as the
impugned judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court.

12.

The
case
is
based
on
circumstantial evidence as there is no direct
evidence of the crime. The principles
governing the appreciation of evidence in
such cases have been summarized by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this
regard in the case of Shivaji Chintappa
Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2021) 5 SCC 626, has laid down as under (
para 12 ):-

"12. The law with regard to
conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence has been very well crystalised in
the judgment of this Court in Sharad
Birdhichand
Sarda
v.
State
of
Maharashtra :-(SCC p.185, paras 153-54)

"153. A close analysis of this
decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully
established:

(1)
the
circumstances
from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned "must or should" and not
"may be" established. There is not only a
grammatical
but
a
legal
distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra where the observations
were made: [SCC p. 807 : para 19, SCC
(Cri) p. 1047]

"19. .....Certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between
"may be" and "must be" is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions."
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency,

4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by
the accused.

154.
These
five
golden
principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence."

14. In the present matter, FIR was
lodged by nine years old daughter of the
deceased, Km. Khushboo, wherein she has
mentioned that Prakash (appellant/convict)
came to her house on the day of incident at
about 11 A.M. Her mother was chopping
vegetables. Prakash and her mother were
sitting on the same cot and started chatting.
Her mother asked her to bring chilies from
the market. When she came back her
mother was found lying dead and her throat
was slit and Prakash (appellant/convict)
was absent. She has also mentioned that
Prakash killed her mother due to old
enmity. Km. Khusbhoo has been examined
as P.W. 1 in the Trial Court on 11.01.2007
i.e. about eight months after the incident.
She has stated in the Court that Prakash
(appellant/convict) came to her house, her
mother and Prakash were sitting on the
same cot and chatting. Her mother asked
about the well-being of her father as the
father of Km. Khushboo and Prakash used
to work together at brick-kiln in Etawah as
a labourer. Thereafter, her mother asked her
to bring chilies from the market and when
she came back, found her mother dead, her
throat
was
slit
and
Prakash
(appellant/convict) was not there. She has
further stated in the Trial Court that she did
not see Prakash cutting the throat of her
mother, hence it is very clear that she is not
an eye witness of the crime. She is witness
only
of
the
fact
that
Prakash
(appellant/convict) was there with her
mother in the house just half an hour before
the incident. She has also stated that her
father was not on talking terms with
Prakash. P.W. 2-Dinesh Singh before whom
the appellant allegedly made an extra
judicial confession about killing of the
deceased by him has turned hostile and he
has not supported the story of prosecution.

15. Now comes another important
witness Kunjan (husband of the deceased),
who has been examined as P.W. 3. He has
stated before the Trial Court that he
received an information about the incident
telephonically. When he came to the
village, her daughter told about the
incident. He has stated in his crossexamination that he received information of
the incident on the next-day of incident and
he came to the village next-day. He has
further stated that his statement was not
recorded by the Investigating Officer in the
Police Station when he reached there, upon
information received. He was called by the
Investigating Officer after 10-12 days of
the incident and upon being asked by the
Investigating Officer he told to the
Investigating officer the reason of murder
of her wife but he nowhere has stated that
Prakash killed her wife due to enmity,
though in his examination-in-chief he has
stated that Prakash (appellant/convict) had
4 All. Prakash Pasi Vs. State of U.P.
1207
killed his wife because Prakash deemed
that one Shiv Sagar killed his (appellant's)
brother upon his (P.W. 3) behest. In crossexamination P.W. 3 has further stated that
Prakash was friendly with him when they
were working at brick-klin in Etawah. At
the time of incident he or his family
members had no enmity with Prakash. He
has clearly stated that Shiv Sagar was
annoyed with Prakash.

16. Alleged recovery of weapon of
crime i.e. knife was admittedly not made at
the pointing out of the accused rather had
been made on the basis of the statement
given by the appellant/convict to the
Investigating Officer while he was confined
in jail. The statement of appellant/convict
was recorded by the Investigating Officer
after taking permission of the Magistrate
concerned, as is evident from the statement
of the Investigating Officer recorded as
P.W. 6. The alleged recovery was made
about two months after the incident and
that too on the basis of statement of the
Investigating Officer while the appellant
was confined in jail. This recovery has no
value in the eyes of law and rightly been
disbelieved by the trial Court.

17. The appellant/convict has stated in
his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that he was falsely implicated in the
crime at the behest of Shiv Sagar, whose
brother was I.G. in police and Shiv Sagar
has terror in the village. Shiv Sagar earlier
killed his brother, so due to his fear he left
the village along with his entire family.
This fact, that Shiv Sagar is the person who
had terror in the village has been proved
even by P.W. 3 Kunjan (husband of the
deceased). He has stated in his crossexamination that village people fear very
much to Shiv Sagar. Whatever is asked by
Shiv Sagar to any person that person has to
comply that. He has also stated that three
other families of the village belonging to
scheduled castes community had left the
village due to terror of Shiv Sagar. Prakash
(appellant/convict) and his family also had
left the village due to fear of Shiv Sagar.
He has further stated that he had friendly
terms with Prakash (appellant/convict). In
such circumstances, the possibility can not
be
ruled
out
that
Prakash
(appellant/convict) was implicated falsely
in the crime. No motive has been
established, though it is not always
necessary that motive should be proved but
in the case of circumstantial evidence the
motive gives strength to the case of
prosecution to connect the links of the
chain of circumstantial evidence.

18. The complainant was nine years
old child at the time of incident. On the day
of incident, when her mother was killed,
she lodged the FIR, her father was in
Etawah where he was working as a
labourer
in
brick-kiln.
About
the
acceptability and appreciation of evidence
Hon'ble Apex Court has held in catena of
decisions that the evidence of a child
witness should be appreciated with caution
because a child is easily be swayed or
tutored. Though the conviction can be
based on the sole evidence of a child
witness but the evidence of such child
witness should be trustworthy and able to
inspire the confidence of the Court.

19.

In
Yogesh
Singh
Versus
Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11 SCC 195, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"It
is
well-settled
that
the
evidence of a child witness must find
adequate corroboration, before it is relied
upon as the rule of corroboration is of
practical wisdom than of law. (See
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prakash Vs. State of M.P., (1992) 4 SCC
225; Baby Kandayanathi Vs. State of
Kerala,1993 Supp (3) SCC 667; Raja Ram
Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC
287; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341; State of
U.P. Vs. Ashok Dixit & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC
70;
Suryanarayana
Vs.
State
Of
Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129.

However, it is not the law that if
a witness is a child, his evidence shall be
rejected, even if it is a found reliable. The
law is that evidence of a child witness
must be evaluated more carefully and with
greater circumspection because a child is
susceptible to be swayed by what others
tell him and thus a child witness is an easy
prey to tutoring. [Vide Panchhi Vs. State
of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177]."

20. In Ranjeet Kumar Ram @Ranjeet
Kumar Das Versus State of Bihar 2015
SCC Online SC500, it has been held as
under:-

"Evidence of the child witness
and its credibility would depend upon
the circumstances of each case. Only
precaution which the Court has to bear
in mind while assessing the evidence of a
child witness is that the witness must be
a reliable one."

21. Thus, it is discernible from the
above cited case laws that though a
conviction can be based on the sole
testimony of a child witness, if the Court
finds it trustworthy and that inspires the
confidence of the Court yet, It is a rule of
practical wisdom than law that testimony of
a child witness must be relied upon when it
is corroborated by other evidence because
the child can easily be swayed or tutored by
others, keeping in view all the facts and
circumstacnes of the case. In the present
matter, Km. Khushboo is a witness of fact
that she saw her mother alive lastly in the
company of Prakash (appellant/convict).
No other person has been examined to
corroborate
the
fact
that
Prakash
(appellant/convict) was present there on the
day of incident. In her written report, she
stated that Prakash (appellant/convict)
killed her mother due to enmity. Her father
(husband of the deceased) has stated as
P.W. 3 that he and Prakash Pasi was on
friendly terms while working in Etawah as
a labourer and he has no enmity with him,
while Km. Khushboo-P.W. 1 has stated that
her father was not on friendly terms with
Prakash (appellant/convict(. Further more,
P.W. 3 has corroborated the fact what has
been stated by Prakash (appellant/convict)
in his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that Shiv Sagar was annoyed with
the appellant.

22. After analyzing the evidence on
record in the circumstances described
above, a strong possibility was there to get
the appellant/convict implicated falsely in
the crime. No other witness except P.W. 1Km. Khushboo has stated that Prakash
(appellant/convict) was seen with the
deceased or around or near the place of the
incident or in the village before or after the
incident, on the day of incident. It has come
in the evidence of P.W. 1-Km Khushboo
that Prakash (appellant/convict) has already
left the village and he was not residing in
the village since the festival of Holi. The
factum of presence of appellant on the day
of incident in the house of the deceased has
not been corroborated by any other
evidence.

23. Thus, in such situation, the
conviction
of
the
appellant
is
not
sustainable on the basis of evidence
available on record. The circumstantial
4 All. Prahlad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1209
evidence brought on record is not strong
enough to point out towards the culpability
of the appellant and appellant alone, in
committing the murder of the deceased,
hence he deserves acquittal. Accordingly
the appeal is allowed. The judgment and
order
dated
14.08.2008
passed
by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6,
Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 276 of
2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006, under Section
302 IPC, Police Station Badokhar, District
Raebareli, is hereby set aside.

24. Let the appellant-Prakash Pasi
convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial
No.276 of 2006, Crime No. 78 of 2006,
under Section 302 IPC, Police Station
Badokhar, District Raebareli, be released
from the concerned jail, if not required in
any other case.

25. Appellant Prakash Pasi is directed
to file personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned in compliance with Section
437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

26. Let a copy of this order alongwith
original record be transmitted to the trial
court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and follow up action.
----------
(2022)04ILR A1209
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2170 of 1983
 with
Criminal Appeal No. 2169 of 1983
Prahlad & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.B. Sahai, Sri Ankit Saran, Sri Om
Prakash Yadav, Sri Pankaj Malviya (A.C.),
Sri Pavan Kumar, Sri Yashwant Pratap
Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A.

A. Evidence of closely related witnesses is
required
to
be
closely
scrutinized
and
appreciated before any conclusion is made to
rest upon to convict the accused in a given
case. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to
it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy it can and
certainly be relied upon.

B. Minor contradiction or inconsistency are
immaterial and irrelevant details which do not in
any way corrode the credibility of witness
cannot be labeled as omission or contradictions
as the mental capabilities of human being
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all
the details, thus, minor discrepancies are bound
to occur in the statements of the witnesses.

C. Convincing evidence is required to discredit
an injured witness.

D. Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 141 & 149
.- Common object does not necessarily require
proof of prior meeting of minds or pre-consult.
The vicarious liability of the members of the
unlawful assembly extends only to the acts done
in pursuance of the common objects of the
unlawful assembly or to such offences as the
members of the unlawful assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in prosecution of that
object. It is not necessary that all the persons
forming an unlawful assembly must do some
overt act.

E. Requisition sent to Doctor to conduct post
mortem not containing all the particulars found
in inquest report and complaint, like particulars
of case, weapon used and names of accused
persons etc. would not lead to the conclusion
that F.I.R. was ante timed. Further, if time of