DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)

                         [2019] 4 S.C.R. 247                             247


         DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN & ORS.                               A
                                  v.
                 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
               (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)
              (Criminal Appeal Nos. 478-479 of 2019)                     B
                         MARCH 15, 2019
 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.149 and s.147, 148, 323,
342, 450 – FIR lodged by Informant-PW-2 that his cousin was fatally      C
assaulted – 17 persons including the appellants were tried for the
offences punishable u/ss.147, 148, 323, 342 & 450 and u/s.302 r/
w.149, IPC – Found guilty by the Trial Court – High Court in appeals
by all the accused persons affirmed the view taken by the Trial
Court – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.457-458 of 2016 filed by
                                                                         D
9 accused before Supreme Court wherein no ground was found for
interference with respect to 5 petitioners – As regards the present
appellants (four accused persons), held: In a crime committed by
an unlawful assembly, by principle of vicarious liability, every
member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of the offence,
even if he himself had not done the actual act – But the facts must      E
indicate with clarity that such person was in fact member of the
unlawful assembly – Prosecution did not allege that any of the
appellants had stormed inside the house and had dragged PW-2’s
cousin – Their presence, at best, going by the version of PWs 2 and
4 (deceased’s son) was outside the house in the street where 25-30
                                                                         F
persons had gathered – Out of such gathering, 17 persons were
named to be accused and sent for trial – PW-2 in his FIR had not
named any of the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the
names of the appellants did occur, however even then he did not
attribute any overt act to the appellants – PW-3 (deceased’s widow)
also did not name any of the appellants – Evidence of PW-4 did           G
indicate some role but that part of the assertion is to be seen in the
light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by PW-3 as
soon as the first part of the transaction occurred and some 7 persons
stormed inside the house – This is perhaps why PW-3 also could not
name any of the appellants – Not established beyond reasonable
                                                                         H
                                 247
248            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which
      they were tried – Benefit of doubt granted to the appellants –
      Acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 In a crime committed by an unlawful assembly
B     by principle of vicarious liability, every member of the unlawful
      assembly would be guilty of the offence, even if he himself had
      not done the actual act. But the facts must indicate with clarity
      that such person was in fact a member of the unlawful assembly.
      The prosecution did not allege that any of the appellants had
C     stormed inside the house and had dragged the deceased Parasram.
      The presence of the appellant, at best, going by the version of
      PWs 2 and 4 was outside the house in the street where 25-30
      persons had gathered. Out of such gathering, 17 persons were
      named to be accused and sent up for trial. It is crucial to note
      that PW-2 in his First Information Report had not named any of
D     the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the names of
      the appellants did occur in his testimony. Even then he did not
      attribute any overt act to the appellants. PW-3 also did not name
      any of the appellants. The evidence of PW-4 did indicate some
      role but that part of the assertion is required to be seen in the
E     light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by their mother
      as soon as the first part of the transaction had occurred and some
      7 persons had stormed inside the house. This is perhaps why
      the mother also could not name any of the appellants.
      [Paras 10, 11][252-H; 253-A-D]

F           1.2 It is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the
      appellants were guilty of the offences with which they were tried.
      Therefore, benefit of doubt granted to the appellants. The
      appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
      [Para 12][253-E]

G           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
      Nos. 478-479 of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2015 of the High Court
      of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos.410 of 2000 and 698
      of 2000.
H
DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW                           249
  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH) [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      Ajit Sharma(AC), Navin Prakash, Meetu Singh, Anshuman                A
Shrivastava, Abhijeet Shrivastava, B. Ramana Murthy, Advs. for the
Appellants.
     Sumeer Sodhi, Aman Nandrajog, Ashish Tiwari, Suryakamal
Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        B

      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These appeals, at the instance of
four original Accused namely Santosh Kumar, Dauwalal @ Ganesh
Devangan, Manohar Verma and Puneetram Verma (Original Accused
Nos.6, 12, 13 and 16 respectively) seek to challenge the common
judgment and order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the High Court 1             C
dismissing Criminal Appeal Nos.410 and 698 of 2000 as against the
appellants.
       2. First Information Report (Ext.P-60) was lodged with Police
Station Bhatapara (Rural), District Raipur pursuant to information
received at the Police Station around 12:05 a.m. on 24.02.1997 from        D
Informant Netram (later examined as PW-2). According to the
information, the cousin of the Informant named Parasram Yadav, Deputy
Sarpanch, Village Jarod, Bhatapara was assaulted fatally on 23.02.1997
at about 9.00 p.m. The relevant information had named certain persons
to be responsible for the crime from the assembly of 25-30 persons who     E
had gathered outside the house of the deceased. The information was:-
         “Bhuneshwar Verma, Kamta Prasad Yadav, Mohan Verma,
         Kaushal verma, Gayaram Verma, Santosh Verma, Bihari Lal
         Verma, Shanker Lal Verma, Bharat Lal Verma, Virendra alias
         Tatku Verma, Daulal alias Ganesh Dewagan, Puneet Ram              F
         Vermaetc 25-30 people of his village came at the house of my
         brother Parasram Yadav, Deputy Sarpanch, Village-Panchayat,
         Jarod, due to enmity and with intention to kill him and being
         unanimous and being armed with Laathi, Danda, Khotlaetc started
         giving filthy abuse and by entering into the house of Parasram
         assaulted him and they dragged Parasram from his house and        G
         took him out in the courtyard and beat him with Laathi, Danda
         and Bhuneshwar Verma hit stone of about 15-20 kg weight on the
         head of Parasram and caused his death, due to which his brain
         got scattered out of skull.”
1
    High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur                                 H
250            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            3. During the course of investigation, names of 17 persons surfaced
      as suspects. Those 17 persons including the appellants were tried for
      the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342 and 450 IPC
      as well as under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in Sessions Case No.359
      of 1997.
B           4. PW-1 Dr. A.D. Purena who had conducted post-mortem on
      the dead body of the deceased deposed that there were external injuries
      all over the body. The head was crushed, lacerated with compound
      multiple fractures on the skull bone, the brain material was absent and
      the skull bones were fractured in various sizes, multiple in number.
C           5. The eye witness account was as under:-
            I. PW- 2 - Netram, cousin of the deceased in his examination-
               in-chief deposed: -
            “I heard sound of Laathi (stick) at the door of my brother
            Parasram, then I came out and saw that Dayaram, Roshan, Onkar,
D           Vinod, Tatku, Dauwa, Manohar, Mohan, Bhuwan and Punit were
            there. My brother Parasram is Deputy Sarpanch of Village Jarod.
            Due to which the accused persons had enmity/quarrel since then.
            When I saw, at that time the accused persons were loudly shouting
            saying ‘nikalo saale ko’. The door was open and seven persons
E           namely Bihari, Shanker, Hari, Vinod, Suneshwar, Bharat and Kamta
            were beating my brother inside the house. I reached on the spot
            and requested the accused persons not to beat my brother, I
            requested them with folded hand. Thereafter, Bihari was dragged
            and pulled out my brother, to which I resisted, then Bihari hit at
            my head. Thereafter, Kamta came from behind and hit Laathi at
F           my head. On this I shivered and got perplexed. Then my wife
            Dulari Bai caught me by both hand and took me to my room and
            locked the door and I saw the incident peeping through the gap of
            door. All the accused persons dragged out my brother from Parchhi
            and hit Laathi due to which my brother got unconscious and fell
G           down. Thereafter, Bihari told that he could be alive so hit the
            stone. Thereafter, Bhaneshwar, Bihari, Shanker, Tetku, Vinod hit
            stone and went away laughing.”
            II. PW-3 - Urmila, widow of deceased Parasram, deposed:-

H
DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW                             251
  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH) [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      “At that time accused Bihari, Kaushal, Hari, Bharat,                   A
      Bhuwaneshwar, Tetku, Kamta, Mote etc. came. They were
      armed with Laathi. Accused persons came to my house and
      assaulted my husband. At that time my husband was sleeping on
      Takhat. They got him lifted down and assaulted. When I stopped
      accused persons from assaulting, then Bihari told me to run away
                                                                             B
      otherwise they could kill me also. Thereafter, they dragged my
      husband from the house to the Parchhi and assaulted there. Then
      they dragged him from Parchhi to the courtyard and then Bihari,
      Bhuwneshwar sworn to hit stone on the head of the deceased
      Parasram and then they brought stone kept at my house and hit at
      the head of my husband Paras. Bihari, Hari, Bharat hit the stone       C
      on the head, due to which the head of my husband was broken
      and his death was caused.”
      III. PW-4 - Narender, 11 years old son of deceased Parasram
      stated that he had seen 7 persons who came inside the house and
      then dragged his father out. After the father was so dragged out,      D
      the accused had assaulted his father. He did not name any of the
      appellants in the first part of the incident but the appellants were
      named to be part of the assembly which had assaulted his father
      outside the house.
      6. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District        E
Raipur by his judgment and order dated 29.01.2000 found that the
prosecution had established its case completely. All 17 accused persons
were found guilty of the offences with which they were charged and the
order of sentence was as under:-
      “… … … every accused person is punished for one year rigorous          F
      imprisonment under Section 148, five years rigorous imprisonment
      under Section 450 and fine of Rs.1000/- each, and under Section
      342 section 323 is included, therefore, accused persons are punished
      with life imprisonment under Section 302/149 and fine of Rs.1000/
      - each. In case of non-deposit of fine, additional simple              G
      imprisonment of 6 months is awarded to each of the accused
      person and in case of payment of Rs.20,000/- may be paid to the
      wife of deceased out of the fine received from the accused persons
      as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. All sentences shall
      run concurrently and period of judicial custody be adjusted from
      the period of sentence.”                                               H
252            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            7. Criminal Appeal Nos.410 and 698 of 2000 were preferred
      against the aforesaid conviction and sentence by 10 convicted accused
      and 7 convicted accused respectively in the High Court. Original Accused
      No.10, Birendra Kumar was found to be Juvenile on the date of
      occurrence and his case was accordingly separated. By its judgment
      and order which is presently under appeal, the High Court affirmed the
B
      view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Thereafter,
      Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.457-458 of 2016 was preferred by 9
      convicted Accused in this Court. On 29.01.2016 this Court found no
      ground for interference with respect to 5 petitioners namely Kamta Prasad,
      Shankerlal Verma, Bharatlal Verma, Hariram Verma and Vinod Verma
C     and dismissed their Special Leave Petition. However, as regards the
      present appellants, notice was issued whereafter both the sides were
      heard in the matter.
            8. Mr. Naveen Prakash, learned Advocate appearing for the
      appellants submitted:-
D           I.The appellants were not named by PW-2 Netram in his first
               reporting.
            II. However, in his examination in Court said Netram had named
                the appellants but did not attribute any specific overt act to
                them.
E
            III. PW-3, Urmila, widow of deceased did not name the appellants
                in her testimony.
            IV. PW-4 did name the appellants as part of the mob which had
               gathered outside the house and was responsible for assault on
F              the deceased. However, in his cross examination, he had
               accepted that while the accused were assaulting his father, his
               mother had kept him and his brother hidden inside the house.
             9. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted
      that the material on record clearly pointed towards the involvement of
      the appellants. He submitted that the appellants were named by both
G
      PWs 2 and 4 and as such the appellants were rightly convicted.
             10. It is true that in a crime committed by an unlawful assembly
      by principle of vicarious liability, every member of the unlawful assembly
      would be guilty of the offence, even if he himself had not done the actual
      act. But the facts must indicate with clarity that such person was in fact
H
DAUWALAL @ GANESH DEVANGAN v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW                                 253
  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH) [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

a member of the unlawful assembly. The prosecution did not allege that           A
any of the appellants had stormed inside the house and had dragged the
deceased Parasram. The presence of the appellant, at best, going by
the version of PWs 2 and 4 was outside the house in the street where
25-30 persons had gathered. Out of such gathering, 17 persons were
named to be accused and sent up for trial.
                                                                                 B
        11. It is crucial to note that PW-2 Netram in his First Information
Report had not named any of the appellants whereas in his statement in
Court the names of the appellants did occur in his testimony. Even then
he did not attribute any overt act to the appellants. PW-3 - Urmila also
did not name any of the appellants. The evidence of PW-4 Narender
did indicate some role but that part of the assertion is required to be seen     C
in the light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by their mother
as soon as the first part of the transaction had occurred and some 7
persons had stormed inside the house. This is perhaps why the mother
also could not name any of the appellants. In the backdrop of these
salient features, the question arises as to the involvement of the appellants    D
in the crime.
        12. Considering all the factual aspects, in our considered view, it
is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty
of the offences with which they were tried. We, therefore, grant benefit
of doubt to the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the          E
appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They
be set at liberty unless their presence is required in connection with any
other offence.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                           Appeals allowed.   F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H