‘Common object’ is the question of fact and mere discrepancy in the medical & ocular evidence shall be ruled out, unless the former vanishes all the possibilities of the latter

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 19th December 2019

State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Ravindra @ Babloo & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1887/2019

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The present SLP was filed against the order of Acquittal of the High Court in the matter of reversing the conviction u/s. 302/149, 307/149, 147, 148 & 452 of Indian Penal Code 1860 by the learned trial court.
2. The assault took place on 10.01.2002, where 2 persons Mahendra and Lokesh, occupying father and son relation were deceased, whereas Mahendri, wife of Mahendra was an injured eye witness.
3. The incident was fuelled by enmity occasioned due to the persisting land dispute.
4. The accused persons (originally 5, but one was deceased during the same incident) were armed with iron od, spade, sword, tabbal and country made pistol, when they entered the house of the deceased Lokesh. Seeing them, the latter ran away from the house, who was chased by the accused persons and was assaulted.
5. Deceased Mahendra fell over Lokesh, so as to save him, but was also assaulted. It is to be noted that, 11 injuries have been found on the person of deceased Lokesh.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly which was likely to commit any act that falls within the purview of Section 141 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. What are the essential ingredients to ascertain the formation of unlawful assembly and what would constitute ‘Common object’?
3. Whether the criterions to constitute ‘Common Object’ was fulfilled to term the assembly of accused persons in the present case as ‘Unlawful Assembly’?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

The court observed while sustaining the order of the learned trial court and set-a-siding the judgment of acquittal of the High Court, while stating the following finding:

1. It is an undisputed fact evident from the allegations and the evidence leaded in the case, that the accused who were all armed constituted an unlawful assembly. Furthermore, the Court also opined the essentialities which are required to prove “Common Object” in the following para-

The “Common Object” of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members comprising it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident. Sharing of common object is a mental attitude which is to be gathered from te act of a person and result thereof. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful (overt act to be proved not required).”

• Thus, in the light of the ratio decided by this court itself in the case of Lalji & Ors. v/s. State of U.P. and Kamaljit Singh v/s. State of Punjab, the order of acquittal was set-aside and directed the accused to surrender within 4 weeks for serving out the remaining period of their sentence.