CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2172 OF 2009

LAKSHMAN BHAGAT & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This matter can be disposed of by a short  

order  in  view  of  some  peculiar  facts.   Eleven  

persons in all were brought to trial for an offence  

punishable  under  Sections  302/149  of  the  Indian  

Penal Code.  The Sessions Judge convicted accused  

No. 3  Hari Bhagat for an offence punishable under  

Section 302 IPC and the other 10 accused for the  

said offence with the aid of Section 149 of the  

IPC.  The order of the Sessions Judge was confirmed  

by the High Court in appeal. Four of the convicted  

accused that is A1, A2, A4 and A5, Saudagar Bhagat,  

Ram Uday Bhagat, Sushil Bhagat and Ram Ekbal Bhagat  

filed   Criminal  Appeal  No.  134  of  2003  in  this  

Court, and amongst various grounds that were raised  

the one which was found to have merit was that in  

view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the  

case, Section 149 of the IPC was not attracted.  

This Court in its judgment dated November 5, 2003,

CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 2

observed as under:

“We  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions   of  the  learned  counsel appearing on either side.  In  our  view,  there  is  absolutely  no  direct  or  concrete  evidence  of  any  kind  either  ocular  or  circumstantial  to substantiate or prove either their  involvement or of active role played  by  the  appellants  in  the  occurrence  which ultimately resulted in the death  of Ram Sagar who seems to have arrived  late  in  the  stage  of  occurrence  involving  PW  -5  and  the  unexpected  sudden firing of shot from the pistol  which  AE  seems  to  have  had  in  his  pocket,  taking  everyone  by  surprise.  To  assume  even  on  such  proved  facts  only or to infer any common object to  kill Ram Sagar on the materials placed  on record so far as the appellants are  concerned,  would  seem  to  be  far  fetched and cannot merit acceptance in  law.   This  aspect  of  the  matter  appears to have escaped the attention  of  the  courts  below,  apparently  on  account  of  the  confined  combined  consideration of the two events in the  context  of  the  charge  relating  to  Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC  pertaining  to  the  earlier  occurrence  involving PW 5 as well as the victim  Ram  Sagar  who  was  an  unexpected  visitor on the spot.  The conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  courts  below  inso  far  as  conviction  under  Section  302  read with Section 149 IPC is concerned  could  not  at  all,  in  our  view,  be  sustained  as  based  on  any  relevant,  concrete  or  legally  acceptable  evidence  and  the  appellants  shall  consequently  stand  acquitted  of  the  said  charge  under  Section  302  read  with Section 149 IPC.

So  far  as  the  occurrence  involving  PW-5  is  concerned,  keeping  in view, the shouts and calls stated

CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 3

to have been made by A-3, A-10 and A- 11  and  the  gathering  of  the  others  including the appellants attracted by  the same, we are of the view that on  the material evidence on record, the  factual findings recorded as to their  presence along with A-3, A-10 and A-11  at any rate, are found justified – and  no exception  could be taken to their  conviction under Section 323 read with  Section  149  IPC.   The  concurrent  findings recorded by both the courts  below  are  not  shown  to  suffer  any  infirmities of the nature, to call for  our  interference  in  this  appeal.  Taking into account the fact that the  maximum sentence that could be imposed  is one year for the said offence and  the appellants seems to have already  undergone custodial sentence for more  than an year we sentence them for the  said  offence  under  Section  323  read  with Section 149 IPC to only one eyar  and  direct  their  release  since  they  have already undergone the same.”

2. The present appeal has been filed by A6 to A-

11  Lakshman  Bhagat  and  others  and  it  has  been  

contended by the learned counsel that in view of  

the  observations  made  by  this  Court  in  Criminal  

Appeal No. 134 of 2003 the appellants, who were  

similarly situated, were entitled to get the same  

benefit.  It has also been pointed out that the  

appeal filed by Ram Sagar Pant A8 has, however,  

been dismissed as he had not surrendered prior to  

the filing of the appeal.  We see from the record  

that the part attributed to the present appellants  

is identical to that of the appellants in Criminal

CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 4

Appeal No. 134 of 2003.   

3. The  learned  counsel  for  the  State  has,  

however,  pointed  out  that  as  far  as  Ram  Baran  

Bhagat and Ram Chandra Bhagat were concerned they  

had been attributed specific roles in as much as  

that  the  former  had  taken  away  a  ring  from  the  

first informant and the latter had snatched a gun  

from the first informant.  Be that as it may, we  

see no distinction as to the the role attributed to  

the appellants herein other than A-8 insofar as the  

application of Section 149  is concerned for the  

offence of murder. They are accordingly acquitted  

of the charge under Section 302/149 of the IPC on  

parity with the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.  

134 of 2003.   We also see that they have been  

convicted for the offence punishable under Section  

379  of  the  IPC.  We  clarify  that  we  are  not  

interfering with  the conviction  under the other  

Sections but reduce the sentence to that already  

undergone.  With these observations,  this appeal  

is partly allowed.

4.  The appellants if in custody shall be released  

forthwith.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 5

    ..................J      [A.K. PATNAIK]

NEW DELHI      FEBRUARY 04, 2010.       

CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 6

  PART-I       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2172 OF 2009

LAKSHMAN BHAGAT & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR ..... RESPONDENT   

O R D E R

We have  heard the  learned counsel  for the  

parties.

Vide  our  separate  reasoned  order,  we  have  

disposed of this appeal and reduced the sentence of  

the  appellants  to  the  period  already  undergone.  

The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if  

not required in connection with any other case.   

The reasoned order to follow.  

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J

CRL. A. No. 2172 of 2009 7

    [A.K. PATNAIK]

NEW DELHI      FEBRUARY 04, 2010.