# 423· RAM TAHAL & ORS v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 423
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-11-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1969
- **Bench:** P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D. G. Pale!(Ar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/423-ram-tahal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-5665
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code (Act, 45 of 1860), ss. 34 and 149-Six persons
named as the only members of unlawful assembly-Two acquiuedWhether others can be convicted under s. 149-Conviction under I. 34Conditions for.
Six accused were charged with the offences under ss. 148 and 302 and
307 read withs. 149 I.P.C., for having formed themselves into an Un•
lawful assembly with the common obje9t of demolishin& a thatch belonging to the complainant and for causing death and injuries when resisted.
The trial court convicted them. On appeal, two of the accused were acquitted and the appellants were comicted for offences under ss. 148 and·
304 and 307 r¢ad with s. 149.
On the question of the validity of the conviction,
HEW :
('!) Before s. 149, which prescribes constructive criminal
liability for members of an unlawful assembly, can be called in aid, the
court must find with certainty that there were at least five persons sharing
a co1nmon object.
It is possible in some cases that though five were unquestionably present the identity of one or more is in doubt in which case
a conviction of the rest with the aid of s. 149 would be good.
Therefore it is not necessary that in every case five persons must always be
con~cted before s. 149 can be applied.
But in such a case, the
court
must find with unerring certainty, that at least five persons were pri:scnt.
[426 H; 427 A-C)
In the present case. the charge definitely named the four appellants
who have been convicted, and the two who have been acquitted, a< bein~
the only members of the unlawful assembly.
Since two of the named
accused were acquitted the conviction of the other four under s. 148 and
ss. 304 and 307 read with s. 149 cannot be sustained on the charge as
framed. [427 F-Ji]
(2) The appellants, however, were guilty of offences under ss. 304
l':lrt l and 307 read with s. 34. The totality of the circumstances indicated that there was a preconcerted plan and a common intention to remove the thatch and to attack any person who resisted. [432 E-H]
The common intention under s. 34, should be anterior in time to the
commission of the crime showing a pr~-arranged plan and prior concert.
Generally, it has to be inferred from the acts or conduct of some or all the
accused i1Dd the totality of relevant circumstances in the case, such as
the manner in which the accused arrived on the ~ccne and mounted th~
attack, the determination and concert with which injuries were caused
by one or some of them, the acts done by others to assist those causing the
iniuries, and the concerted conduct subsequent to the commission of the
offence as for i!lstance, that all of them left the scene of the incident
together. [428 A-El
Dalip Singh &: Ors. v. 611/Je of Purjab [1954] S.C.R. 145 Moht1n
Singh v. State of Pu11jab, I191i.2J ~.upp. l S.C.R. 848 and Krishna Govi11t!
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, {19641 1 S.C.R. 678, followed.
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'/2] 2 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 27 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgmelll and order dated
May 22, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 2636 of 1967 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 260'2
A
-0f 1967.
B
D. P. Singh, V. J. Francis and Suresh Prasad Singh, for th·~
.appellants.
0. P. Rana, for the respondent.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
423·
RAM TAHAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
November 18, 1971
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALE!(AR, JJ.J
Indian Penal Code (Act, 45 of 1860), ss. 34 and 149-Six persons
named as the only members of unlawful assembly-Two acquiuedWhether others can be convicted under s. 149-Conviction under I. 34Conditions for.
Six accused were charged with the offences under ss. 148 and 302 and
307 read withs. 149 I.P.C., for having formed themselves into an Un•
lawful assembly with the common obje9t of demolishin& a thatch belonging to the complainant and for causing death and injuries when resisted.
The trial court convicted them. On appeal, two of the accused were acquitted and the appellants were comicted for offences under ss. 148 and·
304 and 307 r¢ad with s. 149.
On the question of the validity of the conviction,
HEW :
('!) Before s. 149, which prescribes constructive criminal
liability for members of an unlawful assembly, can be called in aid, the
court must find with certainty that there were at least five persons sharing
a co1nmon object.
It is possible in some cases that though five were unquestionably present the identity of one or more is in doubt in which case
a conviction of the rest with the aid of s. 149 would be good.
Therefore it is not necessary that in every case five persons must always be
con~cted before s. 149 can be applied.
But in such a case, the
court
must find with unerring certainty, that at least five persons were pri:scnt.
[426 H; 427 A-C)
In the present case. the charge definitely named the four appellants
who have been convicted, and the two who have been acquitted, a< bein~
the only members of the unlawful assembly.
Since two of the named
accused were acquitted the conviction of the other four under s. 148 and
ss. 304 and 307 read with s. 149 cannot be sustained on the charge as
framed. [427 F-Ji]
(2) The appellants, however, were guilty of offences under ss. 304
l':lrt l and 307 read with s. 34. The totality of the circumstances indicated that there was a preconcerted plan and a common intention to remove the thatch and to attack any person who resisted. [432 E-H]
The common intention under s. 34, should be anterior in time to the
commission of the crime showing a pr~-arranged plan and prior concert.
Generally, it has to be inferred from the acts or conduct of some or all the
accused i1Dd the totality of relevant circumstances in the case, such as
the manner in which the accused arrived on the ~ccne and mounted th~
attack, the determination and concert with which injuries were caused
by one or some of them, the acts done by others to assist those causing the
iniuries, and the concerted conduct subsequent to the commission of the
offence as for i!lstance, that all of them left the scene of the incident
together. [428 A-El
Dalip Singh &: Ors. v. 611/Je of Purjab [1954] S.C.R. 145 Moht1n
Singh v. State of Pu11jab, I191i.2J ~.upp. l S.C.R. 848 and Krishna Govi11t!
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, {19641 1 S.C.R. 678, followed.
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'/2] 2 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 27 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgmelll and order dated
May 22, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 2636 of 1967 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 260'2
A
-0f 1967.
B
D. P. Singh, V. J. Francis and Suresh Prasad Singh, for th·~
.appellants.
0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Jnganmohan Reddy, J. Six accused were charged with
·offences under Section 302, read with Section 149, Section 307
read with 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code for
.having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the
·common object of demolishing the thatch of one Ram Badal,
<Complainant P.W. 1 on 30th November 1967 at about 9.30
a.m. at Mohalla Afawalpur, Qasba Utraula, District Gonda and
for having committed the murder of Ram Harakh alias Harkhey
and Jagga, the brother and mother-in-law respectively of said
Ram Badal.
It appears that Ram Badal had applied on 2-1-66
to the Notified Area Committee, Utraula for permission to construct a thatch on the parti land.
Ram Taha!, accused filed an
objection petition on 6-1-66 objecting to the construction of the
thatch on the ground that Ram Badal was constructing it on a
public highway, but when these objections were being enquired
into Ram Badal and Ram Taha! came to terms and entered into
a compromise by and under which it was agreed that Ram Badal
should leave six ft. wide passage between his house and the house
-0f Gharib across the way.
Notwithstanding this compromise it
is ;illeged that accused Ram Taha! was not happy and during the
Dussehra festival in October 1966 when he wanted to take the
Ramlila · Viman procession through that passage Ram Badal
raised an objection on the ground that there was no precedent for
taking such a procession.
This dispute was however settled by
the intervention of the Notified Area Committee which took an
undertaking from the accused Ram Taha! that he wou Id only take
the· Ranilila Viman procession through that way that year and in
future when Ram Badal had completed his construction, the
Ramlila prol:ession could only be taken through the six feet wide
pass;ige. that was being left, and if he could not do so, through
lha~ passage he will not have any right to take a procession. This
settlement does not appear to have pacified Ram Taha! and it is
stilted that 1 () or 11 days before the occurrence namely on the
19tfr Ncivernber 1966 or 20th November 1966 after Ram Badal
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
D
E
G
H
RAM TAHAL v. U.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
425
had constructed his Chhapar Ram Tahal asked him to pull it
down and threatened him with consequences if he did not do so.
Ram Badal however did not pull down his Chhapar.
On the
30th November 1966 at about 9.30 a.m. Ram Taha!, his sons
Prem, Mata Din, Pitamber, Pudki and his daughter Tara came to ·
the Chhapar of Ram Badal armed and began to pull it down.
Ram Taha! was armed with a Karpa, Prem and Pudki with
Ba!lams, Pitamber and Mata Din with Lathis and Tara with a
Bahangi which is a long pole on the two ends of which a weight
is bound by ropes and it is carried by putting the pole on the
shoulder.
When these accused started pulling
the
Chappar
down Ram Badal's brother Ram Harakh, the deceased, who was
then present resisted the move of the accused and was beaten by
the accused.
On Ram Harakh raising an alarm Ram Badal,
Ori Lal son of Ram Harakh, Ram Badal's mother-in-law Jagga
who lived nearby, Sukhraj P.W. 3 wife's sister's son of Ram
Badal rushed to the scene.
They were also beaten by the accused.
It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Badal had a lathi
which he weilded to defend, but notwithstanding this,
severe
injuries were caused on Ori Lal, Jagga and Ram Harak and they
all fell down and even after they had fallen down they had been
struck.
Accused Prem is said to have struck Jagga with his
Ballarli. after she had fallen down.
On Ram Badal and the
injured persons raising an alarm Kallu, P.W. 2, Kunnu P.W. 6,
Gopi P.W. 7, Bhagirath or Bhagi P.W. 8, Sri Kishan Lal, C.W. 1,
Chhotu C.W. 2 and others came to the spot and on their intervention the accused ran away carrying their weapons
with them.
Jagga and Ram Harakh who were seriously injured were ta'·en to
the Police Station, Utraula accompanied by Sukhraj P.W. 3, while
Ram Badal P.W. 1 went there on Rikshaw. On 1he way to the
Police Station Jagga expired.
Ram Badal, P.W. 1 lodged the
First Information Report at 10.32 a.m. on the same day at the
Police Station which was six furlongs away from the place of the
incident.
In this report all the accused have been
named.
P.W. 13, the Station House Officer before whom F.1.R. was
lodged started investigation and deputed constable• for arresting
the accused and sent Ram Badal, Ram Harakh, Ori Lal · and
Sukhraj to Utraula Dispensary where Dr. 11. C. Paul, P.W. 12
medically examined and treated them.
Subsequently on 5-12-66
at about 3.15 p.m. Ram Harakh also died in the Hospital.
Accm:ed Ram Taha! and Mata Din were arrested on the same day
i.e. 30th NO\'mlber 1966 at 3.30 p.m. Of these Ram Taha! was
carryin11: a blood stained Karpa and wearing a blood stained
Kurta while Mata Din was carrying a blood stained Lathi whose
pieces were Exhibits 9, 10 and 11.
There were injuries found
on both the above accused.
Pitamber was arrested in the evening of the same day at 8.45 p.m.
Rain Taha) and Mata Din
were medically examined on 1-12-66 at the District Jail, Gonda
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
and it was found that there were Ram Taha! 2 abrasion and
one Traumatic swelling on the back of the left hand below the
wrist. On Mata Din were found 3 abrasions, one abrased contusion and one lacerated wound on the right leg middle side. All
the injuries on the accused were simple and could have been
caused by a bhmt weapon like a Lathi and were about two days
old.
Accused Prem and Pudki surrendered themselves
on
6-12-66 before the Court while Tara surrendered on 23-12-66
after proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code were taken
against her ..
The Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda convicted Ram Taha!
of offence under section 148, 302/149, 307/149 l.P.C .. ·and
sentenced him to death under Sec. 302 read with 149 to I 0 years
rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 307 /149 and to 2 years under
section 148 l.P.C.
Accused Mata Din, Prem, Pitamber, Pudki
and Smt. Tara were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
under Sec. 302/149, IO years
rigorous
imprisonment under
Sec. 307/149 and 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section
148.
Two appeals were filed against this--0ne by Ram Taha! and
the other by the rest of the accused.
In the latter appeal Pitamber and Pudki were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted.
The appeals of Ram Taha! and Prem, Mata Din and Tara were
partly allowed and they were acquitted of the offences under Sec.
302 read with 149 and instead the first two namely Ram Tahal
and Prem were convicted und.er Sec. 304/149 and sentenced to
life imprisonment.
Appellants Mata Din and Tara were
convicted under Sec. 304/ 149 1.P.C. and each of them sentenced to
IO years rigorous imprisonment.
Convictions
and
sentences
under the other sections namely under Sec. 307 /149 and Sec.
148 l.P.C. against all the 3 accused were maintained but the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Against this Judgment the accused have appealed by special leave.
The first question that has been urged before us is that none
of the accused were charged for individual acts but were found
guilty under Sec. 304 Part I read with Sec. 149 which requires
the presence of five persons who share the common object, but
since 3 of them were acquitted the conviction of the appellant is
illegal.
It is true that before Sec. 149 which prescribes vicarious
or constructive criminal liability for members of an unlawful
assembly which under Sec. 141 l.P.C. must consist of 5 or more
persons can be called in aid the Court must find with certainty,
as observed by Bose, J. in Da/ip Singh
& Ors. v. State of
Punjab('), that there were at least 5 persons sharing the common
(I) [1954] (Vol. V) S.C.R. 145.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAM TAHAL v. U.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
427
object.
However, as pointed out in that case "A finding that
three of them may or may not have been there betrays uncertainty
on this vital Jl(Jint and it consequently becomes impossible to
allow the conviction to rest on this uncertain foundation." While
saying so it was also pointed out that it is not necessary that in
every case 5 persons must' always be convicted before Sec. 149
can be applied, because it is possible in some cases for Judges to
conclude that though 5 were unquestionably there the identity of
one or more is in doubt, in which case a conviction of the rest
with the aid of Sec. 149 would be good.
In such a case the
Court must say so with unerring certainty.
A 5-Judge Bench
of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab(') bas further
reiterated this principle where it was pointed out that like Sec. 149
of the I.P.C. Sec. 34 of that Code also deals with cases of constructive liability but the essential constituent of the vicarious
criminal liability under Sec. 34 is the existence of a common
intention, but being similar in some ways the two sections in some .
cases may overlap. Nevertheless oommon
intention,
which
Sec. 34 has as its basis, is different from the common object of
unlawful assembly. It was pointed out that common intention
denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates a prearranged plan, a prior meeting of minds and an element of participation
in action. The acts may be different and vary in character but
must be actuated by the same common intention which is different from some intention or similar intention. It was also held
in Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra('), that it makes
no difference whether the acquittal of some of the accused, was
by giving them the benefit of doubt or on the ground that evidence was not acceptable.
In either case they cannot be said to
have conjointly acted with the accused who is sald to have committed an offence. If they. did not act conjointly with him he
could not have acted conjointly with them and he cannot therefore be convicted under Sec. 302 read with 34.
The position in Jaw is therefore clear and it appears to us
that in so far as the conviction and sentence of the appellants
under Sec. 148; 304 read with 149 or 307 read with 149 are
concerned they cannot be sustained on the charge as framed
against them which definitely named the 3 appellants as. also the
3 acquitted accused as being members of an unlawful assembly.
who had in the prosecution of the common object of such assem:
bly, unlawfully demolished the thatch of Ram Badal and were
guilty of an offence of rioting under Sec. 148 and of murder of
Ram Harakh and Jagga under Sec. 302 read with 149 of the
attempted murder of Ram Badal, Sukhraj and Orilal under
Sec. 307 read with 149.
1 ) (1962] Suppl. (3) S.C:R. 848.
·14-L,OOSuP.Cl/72
(2) (1964] (I) S.C.R. 678.
-428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 2 S.C.R.
While
this
is
so
the
question
is
whether the
<.:0nvictions under · Sec.
302 and 307 can be sustained on
the 11,round that they had a common intention
to
commit
the said offence.
The learned Advocate for the Appellant strenuously
contends
tha.
b>~fore the
appellants
can
be convicted under the aforesaid section read with Sec. 34 it must
be shown that they had a prior concert to commit the said offence
which cannot be concluded on the facts of this case.
There is
no doubt that a common intention should be anterior in time to
the commission of the cri~e showing a pre-arranged plan
and
prior concert, and though, it is difficult in most cases to prove the
mtention of an individual, it had to be inferred from the act or
conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case.
This inference can be gathered by the manner in
which the accused
arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determina\ion
and concert with which the beating was given or the
injuries
caused by one or some of them, the acts done by others to assist
those causing the in juries the concerted conduct subsequent
to
the commission of the offence for instance that all of hem had left
the scene of the incident together and other acts which all or
some may have done as would help in determining the common
intention. In other words, the totality of the circumstances must
be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether
the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with
which they could be convicted.
This Court had
in
Krishna
Govind Patil's case already referred to earlier, held that the prearranged plan may develop on 'he spot during the course of the
commission of the offence but the crucial circumstance is that the
said plan must precede the act constituting the offence. If that
be so before a Court can convict a person under Sec. 302 or 304
read with 34 of the l.P.C. it should come to a definite conclusion
that the said person had a prior concert with one or more persons named or un-named for committing the offence.
This being the approach it now remains to be seen whether
the evidence in this case would justify a conviction of the accused
under Sec. 304 and 307 read with Sec. 34 of the l.P .C.
The
High Court no doubt held that the witnesses did not give the
origin of the fight and there was thus no independent evidence to
prove that the fight started, because the appellants
came and
demolished part of the thatch.
The High Court goes on to
observe a• follows :
"To our mind, the quarrel being a sudden one and
the injuries having been caused in the heat of passion,
the case is covered by the Fourth Exception to section
300 l.P.C.
From the injuries it cannot be said that the
action of the appellants was usually cruel.
Each one
of the appellants appears to have caused not more than
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAM TAHAL v. U.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
429
one or two injuries to the fighters
on complainant's
side but in view of the fact that the spear injuries were
caused on the chest which caused the death of Smt.
Jagga and Ram Hara1'b, we think that the appellants
have committed culpaole homicide not amounting to
murder and are punishable under section 304 Part I .
read with S. 149 I.P.C."
This finding in our view is not justified on the evidence.
The
Trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence has held that the
accused Ram Taha! wanted to take the law into his own hands
and along with his children )lad embarked upon the demolishing
of the complainan<s Chhapar on that fateful day.
It was contended that if he had such an intention he would have tried to
demolish 11 immediately when it was be,ng constructed but we
agree with the Additional Sessions Judge that his not doing so
at the t.me when it was being constructed does not perclude him
from having that intention subsequently.
According to P.W. 1,
accused Ram Taha! had asked Ram Badal to pull it down and
threatened him with consr.quences on his failure to do so.
The
dying declaration of Ram Harakh also makes a reference about
this dispute.
The finding of the Investiga :ing Officer on his local
inspection shows that 2 Puras of Khar and 2 Korons were lying
in the ground and a portion of Chhapar was pulled out.
There
was human blood found on the scene of the occurrence and certain pieces of Lathi and Bahangi were found thereon which were
also sent to the Chemical Examiner and Seriologist.
The dying
declaration of Ram Harakh to which the High Court does not
make any reference much less gave any reason why that could
not be relied upon shows that the marpit had started because the
accused had pulled down the Chappar and on being asked not to
pull down the Chappar they had struck him and other persons at
that site.
This statement is quite consistent with the evidence of
Ram Badal and other eye witne,ses of the occurrence that it was
the accused who were the aggressor and had come toge'her armed
with the w~apons to which. we have made reference.
This would
clearly indicate the common intention of all of them to ach;eve
their object of pulling down the Chhapar and to do so with force,
if resisted. If as a result of this aggressive action by the accused
who started beating Ram Harakh and others including Ram Badal
who came to defend their Chhapar from being demolished they
had a right of private defence in exercise of which if they had
caused some injuries to the accused side that does not exculpate
the ac!ion of th~ accused.
Even the High Court does not reject
the evidence that the accused Ram Taha! was armed with Karpa,
Prem was armed with Ballams, and Mata Din was armed with
lathis and Tara armed with Bahangi and had caused the death
of two persons, and sever~ injuries to 3 others.
'
'.
,
4.30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1972] 2 S.C.R.
It is true that according to the accused Ram Taha! the dispute
of the Chhapar had nothing to do with the occurrence in question.
His version in his statement under Sec. 342 before the
Additional Sessions Judge was that when he got knocked over a
brick of the Thiha and he dug out the brick Harkhey and Ram
Badal ran to beat him.
He fell at the feet of Harkhey as to why
he was calling his men for 3 Chhataks of brick bat.
Thereupon
Orilal, Harkhey, Ram B'adal. and Jagga went to beat him
with
Lathis.
He shouted and raised an alarm when accused Mata Din
and Prem came there with lathis and Tara with a Bahangi and
they defended themselves and reheated to their A ngan.
In the
A nga11 'they had received 3 or 4 blows and they struck out in self
defence.
When they fell down Mata Din and he went to the
Police Station Utraula.
It was there that Kunnu announced that
Jagga had expired.
He (Ram Taha!) had a Karpa.
Pitamber
was in school and Pudki was grazing cattle at that time. Accused
Mata Din and Prem had lathis.
This version of Ram Taha!
would corroborate the prosecution evidence that Ram Taha! was
armed .with a Karpa, Ma'la Din had lathi and Tara had a
Bahangi though as far as the weapon in Prem's hand is concerned
he does not admit that he had a Ballam in his hand.
While we
recognise that the statement of Ram Tahal either incriminating
the ·other. accused or in respect of the weapons in their hands,
cannot be used against them, there is ample justificmion for the
Trial Court relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
iri holdirtg that Ram Taha! had a Karpa, Prem a Ballam, Mata
Din a Jathi and Tara a Bahangi.
The nature of the injuries also
to a large extent corroborate the evidence of the eye witnesses
upon whom the Trial Court relied.
As already pointed out while the injuries on accused Ram
Tahal and Matadin were simple injuries which could be caused
by blunt weapon, they are consistent with the evidence of P.W. 1
.Ram. Badal that he waived a stick in defence.
As against this,
the injuries on the complainant and the other injured on his side,
indicate a much more severe action on the part of the accused and
that also with dangerous weapons.
Ram Badal had one lacerated
wound on the front of the chin which could have been caused by
some blunt weapons like a lathi and another punctured injury
having the appearance of a cross of two lacerated wounds each
~" X !" on the left side of the back, with surgical emphysima
round the wound which according to the Doctor could haye been
caused by some pointed weapon like
t~e Karpa.
Both. th~e
injuries were about 2 hours old at the time of the exammatlon
arid could have been received about 9.30 a.m. that day, namely
the day of the incide11t.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAM TAHAL v. U.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
431
Ram Harakh the deceased had 4 punctured wounds,
two
lacerated and one abrasion.
The place where
these
injuries
were given was : ( 1) a liicerated wound on the left side of the
skull, ( 2) punctured wound on the left hypochondrium, 4" below
the nipple, ( 3) punctured wound on the left side of the chest
below the axilla with surgical emphysima around the wound and
irregular and ill-defined broders, ( 4) punctured wound on . the
upper part of the back in between the two axilla with surgical
,emphysima around the wound, ( 5) punctured wound in the shape
of a cross of two lacerated wound:; each 4/5", (6) abrasion on
the right mandibuler angle and (7) a lacerated wound on the
back of the right ring finger at the middle.
In the opinion of the
Doctor, injuries 2, 3, 4 and 5 were grievous and had been caused
by a pointed blade with cross section which could be the blade of
Karpa.
Injuries l, 6 and 7 could be caused by a blunt weapon
like a lathi.
Orilal had 4 punctured wounds and 2 lacerated wounds.
These were : ( 1 ) lacerated wound on the left side of the skull, .
( 2) punctured wound on the left side of the face, (3) punctured
wound on the front of the neck on the back of the chin, ( 4)
lacerated wound on the cleft between the left middle and ring
fingers, ( 5) punctured wound with appearance of a cross of two
lacerat·~d wounds on the chest. The margins were ill-defined.
( 6) punctured wound wi-th the appearance of a cross of two
lacerated wounds each t" X 1/10'' on the left side of the back
at the middle near the spine with surgical emphysima round the
wound.
The opinion of the Doctor was that injuries 2, 3, 5 and
6 could be caused by a pointed blade which could be a blade of
Karpa; the rest of the injuries could be caused by a blunt weapon
like lathi.
These injuries were also about 2 hours old.
On Sukhraj P.W. 3 were found 2 punctured wounds and one
bruise.
These are : ( 1 ) punctured wound having the appearance
of a cross of two lacerated wounds each t" X 2/5",on the front
of the left forearm, margins ill-defined and slightly inverted, (2)
punctured wound having the appearance of a lacerated wound each
i/5"Xl/10" on the back of the left forearm and
(3) a bruise
4" X l" on the right side of the back in the middle.
The medical evidence is that while injury No. 3 was simple injuries l & 2
· were caused by some pointed blade with 4 edges and square crosssection like Karpa.
These injuries were also 2 hours old
and
could have been received at about 9.30 a.m. on the day of the
incident.
On the deceased Jagga there were two abrased contusions
one on the upper part of the nose and the other below the left
eye.
A contusion on the left lower jaw and a stab wound with
shar~ margins 1" X l/3" chest deep, Y' below the inferior angle
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
of the left scapula and 1" towards the outer part.
Internal examination had revealed that in the left lung on the upper part of
the lower Jobe there was a stab wound t" X 1I8" through and
through around which there was 6 oz. of coagulated blood and
on the left ventricle of the heart there was a stab wound
1/3" X 1/R".
While the first 3 injuries had been caused by a
blunt weapon like a Lathi injury No. 4 according to Doctor Gupta
was caused by some sharp pointed weapon which could be a
Ballam.
These injuries clearly show that they must have been given
by Ram Taha! who had a Karpa, Prem who had a Ballam and
Matadin who had a Lathi.
They caused injuries to five persons
on the opposite side; on 4 of them severe injuries, of these two
died.
There is also evidence to show that Tara was weilding a
Bahangi and whether any of the injuries can be traced to her or
not sne was acting in concert with •the others in furtherance of
their common intention.
Further when on the shouis for help given by the complainant and the injured, others came 'to their rescue, all of them ran
away together.
There is no justification therefore for holding as
the High Court did that there was no evidence to show as to how
the quarrel started. In our view the totality of the circumstances
indicate without doubt the inference that there was a pre-concerted plan and a common intention to remove the thatch and to
attack any Person if he resisted. The accused in the furtherance
of that common intention began to remove the Chhapar and
when Ram Harakh obstructed, they beat him and others who
came to resist their attack and aggression.
On these findings the Trial Court convicted
them of the
offences of rioting, murder and attempted murder but since two
of the accused had been totally acquitted of all charges and the
others have been -acquitted of the charge of murder and there is
no appeal ·against these acquittals we are unable to say whether
these findings by the High Court are justified.
Nevertheless the
appellants are clearly guilty of offences under Sec. 304 Part I
read with Sec. 34 and also Sec. 307 read with 34 and accordingly
we so convict them and substitute these convictions for the convictions of which they were held guilty by the High Court which
we have set aside.
We however maintain the sentences awarded
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
RAM TAHAL v. U.P. STATE (}aganmohan Reddy, !.)
433
to them.
On these findings Ram Tahal and Prem are sentence.d
to life imprisonment under Sec. 304 Part I read with 34 while
Matadin and Smt. Tara are each sentenced to 10 years rigorous
imprisonment for the same offence namely 304 Part I read with
Sec. 34 I.P.C.
Each of them is further sentenced to 10 years
rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 307 read with Sec.
34 I.P.C.
The sentences on each of them are directed to run
concurrentlv.
The appeal is accordingly dismiss-~d with the said
modifications.
V.P.S.