http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: STATE OF A.P., EDLA BHOOM REDDY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THAKKIDIRAM REDDY & ORS., STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/08/1998

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO  793 OF 1998        (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 4429 OF1995)                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.      Special leave  granted in  S.L.P. (Crl.)  No.  4429  of 1995, limited to the nature of offence. 2.   In Sessions  Case  No.  552  to  1992,  the  Additional Sessions Judge, Karim Nagar, indicted twenty one persons for lurking house  trespass, rioting,  murder and  other  allied offences. While  acquitting ten  of them,  the  trial  Judge convicted the  other eleven  (Who were  arrayed as A1 to A11 respectively in  the trial  Court and hereinafter will be so referred to)  under Section 148 and 302/149 IPC. Besides, A1 to A3  were convicted under Section 457 IPC, A4 to A11 under Section 447 IPC and A3 and A4 under Section 324 IPC. Against their convictions  and sentences  A1  to  A11  preferred  an appeal before  the High  Court  which  was  disposed  of  by setting aside  the convictions  of A2  to A11 under Sections 148 and  302/149 IPC  and maintaining all other convictions. Assailing the  judgment of  the High  Court,   the State  of Andhra Pradesh  has filed  an appeal  - besides  the  appeal filed by  A1 -  against the  acquittal of  A2 to  A11 of the charges under  Section 148  and 302/149 IPC wherein leave to appeal has been granted limited to the acquittal of A2 to A5 and A9.  Both the  appeals have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them. 3.   The  prosecution   case,  in  brief,  is  that  in  the intervening night of August 10/11, 1990, at or about 1 A.M., all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed  with  crow-bars,  sticks  and  other  deadly weapons and  descended upon the house of Gankidi Mohan Reddy (the deceased)  in Thimmapur  village. They  broke open  the door of  the house and dragged him into its front yard. When his wife  Bhagya Lakshmi  (P.W.2) and  his  brother  Gnakidi Narsimha Reddy (P.W.3) intervened, A3 beat the former and A2 the latter,  both with  sticks. Meanwhile,  the deceased had extricated himself  form the  clutches of the miscreants and tried to  run away  but he was apprehended by them and again brought to  the front yard. There A1 beat him with a plough-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

rod (negatipale).  A2 with  a crow-bar  and A3  and A5  with sticks. When  the parents  of the deceased intervened A1 and A4 beat  them also.  Thereafter the  other  accused  persons started beating  the deceased.  Gankidi  Narsimha  Reddy,  a cousin of  the deceased, then came to his rescue, but he was also caught  hold of and beaten up. The miscreants then left the place.  All the injured persons were taken to Government hospital, Karim  Nagar, in  a tractor  where their  injuries were attended  to. However  Gnakidi Mohan Reddy succumbed to his injuries  at about  4 A.M. A few hours later (at about 6 A.M.)  P.W.1  went  to  L.M.D.  Colony  Police  Station  and reported the  incident and  on his  report Syed  Sadiq (P.W. 13), the Head Constable, registered a case. Circle Inspector P. Satyanarayana  (P.W.15) of Husnabad took up investigation and went  to the   Government hospital There he held inquest upon the  dead body  and sent  requisition  to  the  Medical Officer for its post-mortem examination. He then went to the scene of  offence, got it photographed and seized some blood stained earth, two pairs of sleepers, two crow-bars and some broken sticks  therefrom.  In  course  of  investigation  he arrested the  accused persons and pursuant to the statements made by some of them recovered some-crow-bars and sticks. On completion  of  investigation,  he  submitted  charge  sheet against them. 4.   The motive  that was  attributed  to  the  accused  for committing the  offences was  that there was a long standing enmity  between   them  and  the  family  of  the  deceased. According to the prosecution in the year 1982, the deceased, who was  the Sarpanch  of Thimmapur  village, did not permit some relations  of A2  and A3  to join  their services  even though they  got appointments  as Carobar and Sweeper in the Gram  Panchayat  under  orders  of  the  District  Panchayat Officer. This  enraged A2  and A3  and  they  assaulted  the deceased. Three  days later,  when a panchayat was held over the issue  the two  groups fought  with each other for which cases were  registered against  both. Later  on, there was a matrimonial  dispute  between  the  cousin  of  A1  and  the daughter of  one of the followers of the deceased. Following that dispute the relatives of the girl beat her husband, her father-in-law and  A1 for which a case was registered. It is further alleged  that A12  usurped the  house of  one  Fakir which was  unauthorisedly built on a Government land and the deceased, as  the Sarpanch,  got a resolution passed for its demolition.  He  got  similar  resolution  passed  when  A13 constructed another unauthorised house. Owing to such bitter enmity the  accused persons  conspired to  do away  with the deceased and  pursuant to that conspiracy they committed the crimes the question. 5.   The accused  persons pleaded  not guilty to the charges levelled against  them and  contended that they were falsely implicated. 6.   In support  of its  case, the  prosecution examined  15 witnesses but  no witness  was examined  on  behalf  of  the defence. Of the witnesses examined, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and two of their  neighbours, namely Gankidi Laxma Reddy (P.W.4) and Babu Reddy (P.W.5), figured as eye witnesses, P.W.s.1 ,2 and 3 narrated  the prosecution  case detailed  earlier and also spoke about their long standing enmity with the accused; and P.Ws. 4 and 5 fully supported their version of the incident. The trial  Judge discussed  the evidence  of the  above five witnesses threadbare in the light of the arguments canvassed on behalf  of the  defence against  its acceptance  and held that so  far as  the place and time of offence and the overt acts  attributed   to   them,   there   were   no   material discrepancies except  one or two omissions. The  trial Judge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

found  that   the  evidence   of  the   eye  witnesses   was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12, who held post-mortem examination upon  the deceased,  and of  Dr. Raghavaiah  who exmained P.Ws.  1, 2  and 3  and Gankidi Narsimha Reddy, the cousin of  the deceased (not examined) and found injuries on their persons. The trial Judge further found that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged by P.W.1 and it contained the substratum of the  prosecution case. Inspite of such findings the trial Judge gave the benefit of doubt to A12 to A21 as their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. 7.   The High  Court virtually confirmed all the findings of the  trial   Court  in   all  respects  but  set  aside  the convictions of  A2 to  A11 of the offences under Section 148 and  302/149 IPC with the following observations :      "The omnibus  statement  about  the      culpability of  the accused  in the      testimony   of    the   prosecution      witnesses     would      in     the      circumstances of  the case  have to      be considered  only in the light of      specific overacts attributed to the      accused and  as may be corroborated      by Medical  evidence. Therefore, we      find it  difficult to  accept  that      all the  appellants were members of      the  unlawful   assembly  with  the      object of  committing the  offence.      In the  circumstances, we hold that      it  is   highly  unsafe   to  apply      Section 149  and make  everyone  of      them  constructively   liable.   We      therefore  have  no  hesitation  in      dismissing  the   prosecution  case      against  the   appellants  on   the      charge  under   Section  149   IPC.      Accordingly, the  conviction of all      the   appellants    accused   under      Section 149 IPC is set aside.      Having rejected the contention that      the  appellants   were  members  of      unlawful  assembly,   it  would  be      equally unsafe to apply section 148      of IPC  on  the  basis  of  omnibus      statements made  by the prosecution      witnesses which is not corroborated      by Medical  evidence.  Accordingly,      the   conviction    of   all    the      (appellants) accused  under Section      148 IPC is set aside."      In upholding  the conviction  of A1  for the murder the High Court observed that all the five witnesses consistently deposed that  A1 beat  the deceased  with a  stick meant for ploughing called  nagatipale on  his  head  and  the  doctor (P.W.12) opined that the victim died of the head injury. 8.   We have  carefully gone  through the entire evidence on record and  the judgments  of the  learned Courts  below and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 9.   Before considering  the factual aspects of the case, it will be necessary to advert to a question of law relating to the validity  of the  trial raised  by Mr.  Arunachalam, the learned counsel  appearing for A2 to A5 and A9. He contended that charges  were not framed against the accused persons in accordance  with   Section  211  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, in  that, in  the charge framed under Section 148 IPC though  it was  alleged that they were the members of an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

unlawful assembly  it was  not mentioned what was its common object. Besides,  he contended,  a charge  under Section 302 IPC simpliciter  was framed  against all the accused persons and not  with the aid of Section 149 IPC for which they were convicted by  the trial  court. He submitted that an accused is entitled to precisely know the exact nature of the charge brought against  him. According  to him,  unless he has this knowledge,  he   will  be   prejudiced   in   his   defence, particularly in  a case  - as  the present one - where he is sought to  be prosecuted  for acts  not committed by himself but by  others with whom he is in company. It is undoubtedly true that  the charges suffered from the infirmities pointed out by  Mr. Arunachalam  but the  question  is  whether  the trial,  and,  for  that  matter,  the  convictions  recorded against the accused were vitiated thereby. 10.  Sub-Section (1)  of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  (‘Code’ for  short) expressly provides that no finding,  sentence or  order  by  a  Court  of  competent jurisdiction shall  be deemed  invalid merely  on the ground that no  charge was  framed or  on the  ground of any error, omission  or   irregularity  in  the  charge  including  any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation  or revision, a failure of justice h as in fact  (emphasis supplied)  been occasioned  thereby. Sub- section (2) of the said section lays down the procedure that the Court  of appeal, confirmation or revision has to follow in case  it is  of the opinion that a failure of justice has in fact  been occasioned. The other section relevant for our purposes is  Section 465  of the Code; and it lays down that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall  be reversed  or altered  by a  Court  of appeal, confirmation  or revision  on account  of any error, omission or  irregularity in  the proceedings, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.  It   further  proves,   inter  alia,   that  in determining whether  any error,  omission of irregularity in any proceeding  under this  Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could  and should  have been  raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 11.  This Court  in Willis  (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1995 (2) SCR 1140] elaborately discussed the applicability of  Sections  535  and  537  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure  1898, which  correspond respectively  to Section 464  and 465 of the Code, and held that in judging a question of  prejudice, as  of guilt, courts must act with a broad  vision   and  look   to  the  substance  and  not  to technicalities, and  their main  concern should  be  to  see whether the  accused had  a fair trial, whether he knew what he was  being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against  him were  explained to  him fairly  and clearly and  whether he  was given a full and fair chance to defend  himself.   Viewed  in   the  context  of  the  above observations of  this Court  we are  unable to hold that the accused persons were in any way prejudiced due to the errors and omissions in the charges pointed out by Mr. Arunachalam. Apart from  the fact  that this  point was  not agitated  in either of  the Courts below, from the fact that the material prosecution witnesses  (who narrated  the  entire  incident) were cross  examined at  length from all possible angles and the suggestions  that were  put forward to the eye witnesses we are  fully satisfied that the accused persons were not in any way  prejudiced in their defence. While on this point we may also mention that in their examination under Section 313 of the  Code, the  accused persons were specifically told of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

their  having  committed  offences  (besides  others)  under Sections 148  and 302/149  IPC. For  all  these  reasons  we reject the threshold contention of Mr. Arunachalam. 12.  Coming now  to the  facts of  the case,  it  cannot  be gainsaid that  since the incident took place in the house of the deceased at the dead of night, PWs. 1, 2 and 3, who were members of  his  house  hold,  were  the  most  natural  and probable witnesses.  Further, the injuries sustained by them in that  night leaves  no room  for  doubt  that  they  were present when the incident took place. As regards P.Ws. 4 and 5, their  claim that  they saw  the incident  cannot also be doubted for  they were  the  next  door  neighbours  of  the deceased. The  evidence of  the above five witnesses, so far as it  relates to  t he  manner in  which the  incident took place is  consistent and cogent and does not suffer from any infirmity.  On   the   contrary,   their   evidence   stands corroborated by the following facts and circumstances :- i)   P.W.12, who  held the  post mortem examination upon the      body of  the deceased, found ten injuries which, in his      opinion, could be caused by a hard substance like stick      or crow bar; ii)  P.W.14, the  other doctor,  who examined  P.Ws. 1, 2, 3      and Gankidi  Narsimha Reddy  in the  early hours of the      morning noticed  a number  of injuries on their persons      and, according to him, all those injuries could also be      caused by such weapons; iii)  the  F.I.R.  was  lodged  at  the  earliest  available      opportunity  and   therein   the   substance   of   the      prosecution case finds place; iv)  blood stained  earth, two  crow bars  and  some  broken      sticks were found in the front yard of the house of the      deceased; and v)   an unhinged  broken doorleaf  was found  lying  on  the      floor.      From all these materials on record it must be said that the concurrent  findings of  the Courts  below that  on  the fateful night  a mob  armed with crow-bars, sticks and other weapons forcibly  entered into  the house  of the  deceased, killed him  and injured  four members of his family who came to his rescue, are unexceptional. 13.  That brings  us to  the questions  whether A1 to A5 and A9, who re only before us in these appeals, were amongst the miscreants and,  if so,  the nature of offences committed by them. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 named A1 to A5 and A9 (besides others) as the  members of  the mob  and also gave out categorically the  parts  played  by  them  in  the  rioting  and  murder. According to  these witnesses  when the deceased was dragged to the front yard of the house, his wife intervened. A3 then beat her with stick. When P.W.3 went to their rescue A2 also b eat  him with  stick. In  the meantime  the  deceased  had extricated himself  from their  clutches and  ran  into  the house but  A1 to A3 went inside and dragged him to the front yard again. Then, A1 beat him with a  nagatipale on his head and he  fell down.  A2 then  beat him  with crow  bar on his cheek and  when P.W.1’s  wife intervened  A9 beat her with a stick. Their  further evidence  is that A1 to A3 and A5 beat the deceased  again and when P.W.1 tried to save him A4 heat him with  stick on  his head.  Lastly, the  witnesses stated that on  being instigated by A1 other accused beat Narsimha, when he  came to  their rescue.  These witnesses  also spoke about the previous long standing enmity between their family and the  accused. PWs.4  and 5 fully supported their version about the  roles played by the above six accused persons. It is of  course true  that there  are some  contradictions  in between their  statement made in Court and before the police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

during investigation.  Both the  Courts  below  found  those contradictions minor  and of  no  moment;  and  having  gone through them  we are in complete agreement with the views so expressed. 14.  As noticed earlier, the  High Court, while relying upon the evidence of the above witnesses to uphold the conviction of A1,  rejected their  evidence qua the other accused, only so far  as it related to their convictions under Section 148 and 302/149 IPC on the grounds, that without strict proof of their specific  overt acts  they could  not be convicted for the above  offences only  on the  omnibus statements  of the five eye  witnesses about  their culpability  and that their testimony regarding  the overt acts of the other accused was not supported  by the  medical evidence.  In our  considered view, none of the grounds can be sustained. 15.  The question  as to  wh at  is required  to  be  proved against a  person who  is alleged  to  be  a  member  of  an unlawful assembly  came up  for consideration before a four- Judge Bench of this Court in Masalti vs. State of U.P. [1964 (8) SCR  133] and  it answered  the same  with the following words :      "While determining  this  question,      it  becomes  relevant  to  consider      whether the  assembly consisted  of      more  persons   who   were   merely      passive witnesses  and  had  joined      the assembly  as a  matter of  idle      curiosity  without   intending   to      entertain the  common object of the      assembly. It  is  in  that  context      that the  observations made by this      Court in  the case  of  Baladin  v.      State of  U.P. assume significance;      otherwise, in  law, it would not be      correct to say that before a person      is  held  to  be  a  member  of  an      unlawful assembly, it must be shown      that he  had committed some illegal      overt act  or had  been  guilty  of      some illegal  omission in pursuance      of  the   common  object   of   the      assembly.  In   fact,  Section  149      makes it  clear that  if an offence      is committed  by any  member of  an      unlawful assembly in prosecution of      the common object of that assembly,      or such  as  the  members  of  that      assembly knew  to be  likely to  be      committed in  prosecution  of  that      object, every  person who,  at  the      time  of  the  committing  of  that      offence, is  a member  of the  same      assembly,   is   guilty   of   that      offence;  and   that   emphatically      brings out  the principle  that the      punishment  prescribed  by  Section      149 is  in a  sense  vicarious  and      does  not  always  proceed  on  the      basis that  the  offence  has  been      actually committed  by every member      of the unlawful assembly."           (emphasis supplied) 16.  The same  principles were  enunciated by  this Court in Lalji vs. State of U.P. [1989 (1) SCC 437] wherein it said :      "The two  essentials of the section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    are the commission of an offence by      any member  of an unlawful assembly      and that  such  offence  must  have      been committed  in  prosecution  of      the common  object of that assembly      or must  be such  as the members of      that assembly  knew to be likely to      be committed.  Not every  person is      necessarily guilty  but only  those      who   share in  the common  object.      The common  object of  the assembly      must be  one of  the  five  objects      mentioned  in  Section  141  I.P.C.      Common  object  of  the    unlawful      assembly can  be gathered  from the      nature of  the assembly,  arms used      by them  and the  behavior  of  the      assembly  at  or  before  scene  of      occurrence. It  is an  inference to      be  deduced   from  the  facts  and      circumstances of each case.      Section 149  makes every  member of      an unlawful assembly at the time of      committing of the offence guilty of      that  offence.  Thus  this  section      created  a  specific  and  distinct      office. In  other words, it created      a   constructive    or    vicarious      liability of  the  members  of  the      unlawful assembly  for the unlawful      acts  committed   pursuant  to  the      common object  by any  other member      of  that   assembly.  However,  the      vicarious liability  of the members      of the  unlawful  assembly  extends      only to  the acts done in pursuance      of  the   common  object   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.  Once the  case  of  a      person falls within the ingredients      of the section the question that he      did  nothing  with  his  own  hands      would be  immaterial. He cannot put      forward the defence that he did not      with  his   own  hand   commit  the      offence committed in prosecution of      the common  object of  the unlawful      assembly or  such as the members of      the assembly  knew to  be likely to      be committed in prosecution of that      object. Everyone  must be  taken to      have  intended   the  probable  and      natural results  of the combination      of the  acts in which he joined. It      is  not   necessary  that  all  the      persons   forming    an    unlawful      assembly must  do some  overt  act.      When the  accused persons assembled      together, armed  with  lathis,  and      were parties  to the assault on the      complainant party,  the prosecution      is  not   obliged  to  prove  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    specific  overt  act  was  done  by      which of  the accused. This section      makes  a  member  of  the  unlawful      assembly responsible as a principal      for the  acts  of  each,  and  all,      merely because he is a member of an      unlawful assembly.  While overt act      and   active    participation   may      indicate common  intention  of  the      person perpetrating  the crime, the      mere  presence   in  the   unlawful      assembly may  facten  vicaric  only      criminal  liability  under  Section      149. It  must  be  noted  that  the      basis  of  the  constructive  guilt      under   Section    149   is    mere      membership    of    the    unlawful      assembly, with the requisite common      object or knowledge."           (emphasis supplied) 17.  From the  above judgments  of this  Court it is evident that to  ascertain whether  a particular  person shared  the common object  of the  unlawful assembly it is not essential to prove  that he  committed some  illegal overt  act or had been guilty  of some  illegal omission  in pursuance of t he common object. Once it is demonstrated from all the facts an d circumstances  of a  given case  that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of which some offence was  committed  -  or  he  knew  was  likely  to  be committed -  by any other person, he would be guilty of that offence. Undoubtedly,  commission of  an overt act by such a person would be one of the tests to prove that he shared the common object,  but it  is not  the sole test. Coming now to the present  case, the  fact that at the dead of night a mob of persons  armed with  various weapons  forcibly trespassed into the house of the deceased after breaking open the door, clearly indicates  that they had formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit some offence and each of them would be  liable for the offence committed or knew likely to be committed  by any of the members of the mob. To ascertain what was  the common  object of the above unlawful assembly, we will advert later. Suffice it to say, at this stage, that in the  facts and circumstances of this case the six accused (with whom  only we are concerned in these appeals) would be guilty for  the offence committed by any other member of the mob, in  furtherance of  the common object, without proof of any overt act committed by them. We do not, however, wish to dilate on  this aspect  of the matter any further as we find the second  ground canvassed  by the  High  Court  that  the ocular evidence  regarding overt  acts committed by A2 to A5 and A9  is not  supported by  medical evidence, is factually incorrect. 18.  As stated  earlier the  deceased sustained  10 injuries (details of  which we  will  refer  to  at  a  later  stage) including lacerations  and abrasions  and the  doctor opined that all  those injuries  could be  caused by hard and blunt weapon like  crow-bar or stick. As regards the four injured, we get from the evidence of P.W.14 that P.W.1 sustained four injuries, P.W.2  and P.W.3  two each  and G. Narsimha Reddy, six. He  opined that injury Nos. 1 and 6 found on the person of Narsimha  Reddy were  grievous in  nature and  all  other injuries on his person and the injuries found on the persons of the  three witnesses  were simple  in nature.  He further opined that  the injuries  could be  caused by  blunt weapon like stick. The injuries found on the person of the deceased

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

as also  the four injured fit in with the version of the eye witnesses regarding the manner of assault by A1 to A5 and A9 and we  are  at  loss  to  understand  how  the  High  Court concluded that  the medical  evidence  did  not  corroborate their evidence. 19.  The next  question that  requires an answer is what was the common object of the unlawful assembly. Both the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that considering the nature  of the injuries inflicted by the miscreants upon the deceased,  it could not be said that their common object was to  commit the murder. According to the learned counsel, even if  the entire  prosecution case  was believed the only inference that  could be  drawn was that the accused persons were guilty  only of  the  offence  under  Section  325  for causing grievous  hurt with blunt weapons, read with Section 149 IPC.  To appreciate  this contention raised on behalf of the appellants it will be necessary to refer to the injuries sustained by  the deceased.  PW12, who  held the post mortem examination upon  the deceased  stated  that  he  found  the following external injuries on his person :      "1. Laceration left cheek 3" x 1" x      1/2".       2.  Abrasion left  shoulders 2"  x      1".       3.  Laceration right leg 1" x 1" x      1/2".      4. Three  abrasions on the left leg      each 1" x 1".      5. Laceration right frontal area 5"      x 1/2" x 1/2".      6. Laceration  right parietal  area      6" x 1" x 1".      7. Laceration  occipital area  4" x      1/2’ x 1/2".       8.  Abrasion left lower chest 1" x      1"."      So far  as internal  injuries are  concerned he  stated that on  examination of the skull, he found fractures on the right temporal bone, parietal bone and occiptal bone and the total length  of the fracture was 7". He further stated that subarachnoid haemorrhage  was present.  He opined  that  the head injury  alone was  sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. 20.  If the   injuries were to be considered in isolation we might have  persuaded ourselves  to give a second thought to the above  submission of  the learned  counsel but  when the injuries are  considered in  the context  of the facts, that there was  bitter enmity  between the  parties, that  at  an unearthly hour  the miscreants  armed with  various  weapons like crow-bars  and sticks  trespassed into the house of the deceased after  breaking open  the door,  dragged him out of the bed  room to  the front  yard and beat him to death, and that whoever  came to  his rescue  was beaten  up, the  only conclusion that  can be  drawn  was  that  they  formed  the unlawful assembly  with  the  common  object  of  committing murder of  the deceased  and as  soon as their objective was achieved they left the place. 21.  It was  also contended  by Mr.  Arunachalam that since, admittedly, the  injury inflicted  by A1 caused the death of the deceased  and the  injuries inflicted  by others  on his person were  simple in  nature, it could not be conclusively said that  A2 to A5 and A9 shared with A1 a common object to commit the  murder. In other words, according to the learned counsel, committing  the murder was the individual act as A1 and not  in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

assembly. We  are unable  to accept the above contention for the reasons  mentioned earlier.  That apart,  the manner  in which the incident took place clearly proves that even if we were to assume that A2 to A5 and A9 did not share the common object of  committing the murder, they, being members of the unlawful assembly  certainly knew that the murder was likely to be committed by A1 in prosecution of the common object so as to  make them  liable under  Section 302  read with,  the second part  of Section  149 IPC.  In  either  view  of  the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not  at all  justified in  acquitting A2 to A5 and A9 of the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. 22.  On the  conclusions as  above, we  dismiss  the  appeal preffered by  Edla Bhoomreddy  (A1), son of Gopal Reddy, and allow the  appeal of State of Andhra Pradesh and restore the convictions and  sentences  recorded  against  Thakkidi  Ram Reedy (A2),  Kasam Kanka  Reedy (A3),  Mothey Narayana Reddy (A4), Gunukulla  Malla Reddy (A5) and Edla Bhoom Reedy (A9), son of  Narsimha Reedy, by the trial court under Section 148 and 302/149  IPC. A2  to A5 and A9 are directed to surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence imposed by the trial Court.