KRISHNAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION

                      [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1068


A                     KRISHNAPPA & ORS.
                                v.
    STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BABALESHWARA POLICE
                         STATION·
           (Criminal Appeal No. 984 of 2010 etc.)
B                        JULY 31, 2012.
    [H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:
c
        ss. 3021149 - Murder committed by members of an
  unlawful assembly - Conviction by trial court of 3 accused -
  High Court acquitting one of them but reversing acquittal of
  four more accused - Held: The prosecution has clearly
  established with ample evidence that A-13 and A-14 had
0
  murdered the deceased - Further, A-1, A-15, A-16 and A-21
  were members of the same assembly which has caused
  murder of deceased - They had dragged the deceased after
  first assault and contributed in preventing him from escaping
  the assault of A 13 and A 14 - Therefore, A-1, A-15, A-16, A-
E 21 are guilty of murder along with A-13 and A-14 u/s 302 read
  with s. 149 /PC - FIR - Delay in registration of, explained.

       The six appellants (A-13, A-14, A-1, A-15, A-16 and A-
  21 along with others were prosecuted for causing the
F death of the father of PW-1. The prosecution case was
  that there was a long standing enmity between the
  deceased and the families of the accused persons, as the
  grand father of the deceased had been killed by the
  members of the families of the accused. This enmity
G further intensified due to political rivalry. On the date of
  the incident at about 10 A.M., accused A-1, A-13 to A-17,
  and A-21, armed with axes, chopper and clubs reached
  the place of occurrence. A-13 aild A-14 assaulted the
  victim with axe. A-1, A-15, A-16 and A-21 dragged the
H                            1068
    KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY              1069
        BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION
victim. Again A-13, A-14 and A-17 assaulted the victim.      A
The accused threatened the bystanders. Meanwhile A-2
to A-12, A-18 to A-20, A-22 and A-24 also reached the
scene of occurrence and assaulted the victim with hands
and also kicked him. Thereafter all the accused left the
place with their weapons. PW-1 went to his elder brother     B
and both 'of them reached the Police Station at 11.15 A.M.
On arrival of the SHO, the written complaint of PW-1 was
registered at 12.00 noon. The trial court convicted A-13,
A-14 and A-17 u/s' 302/149 IPC. The High Court allowed
the appeal of the State and also convicted A-1, A-15, A-     c
16 and A-21 u/s 302/149 IPC. The appeal of A-13 and A-
14 was dismissed. However, A-17 was acquitted.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HE;LD: 1.1. The provisions of s.149 IPC will be D
attracted whenever any offence is committed by any
member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or when the members
of that assembly knew that the offence is likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, so that every E
person, who, at the time of committing of that offence is
a member, will be also vicariously held liable and guilty
of that offence. Section 149 creates a constructive or
vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful
assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the F
common object by any other member of that assembly.
The factum of causing injury or not causing injury would
not be relevant, where accused is sought to be roped in
with the aid of s.149 IPC. [para 20] [1077-C-G]

                                          =
     La/ji v. State Of U.P., 1989 (1) SCR 130 (1989) 1 sec   G
437; Al/auddin Mian v. State of Bihar 1989 (2) SCR 498  =
(1989) 3 SCC 5; Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar 1995 (2)
         =
SCR 826 (1995) 4 SCC 392; State v. Krishan Chand 2004
                   =
(3) Suppl. SCR 640 (2004) 7 SCC 629; Dea Narain v. State
                                                             H
    1070    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A of Uttar Pradesh 2010 (9) SCR 349 = (2010) 12 SCC 298 -
  relied on

      1.2. In the instant case, the prosecution has clearly
  established with ample evidence that accused- A13 and
  A14 had murdered the deceased. Further, accused- A1,
8
  A15, A16 and A21 were members of the same assembly
  which caused the murder of the deceased, in terms of
  s.149 IPC, as they had dragged the deceased after the first
  assault and contributed in preventing the deceased from
C escaping the assault of A13 and A14. Therefore, accused
  A1, A15, A16, A21 are guilty of murder along with A13 and
  A14 u/s 302 read withs. 149 IPC. There is no infirmity in
  the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
  Court. [para 21, 22 and 25] [1078-A-D & G]

D       Sahdeo v. State of U.P. 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 918· =
    (2004) 10 SCC 682 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpa/
    2008 (11) scR 1048      =  (2008) 16 sec 73 - held
    inapplicable.

E       2. The delay in registering FIR is justified as the
    complainant had to travel .30 kms on a mud road to reach
    the Police Station from the scene of crime. Also, the
    absence of S.I. in the Police Station further contributed
    in delay in registering the FIR. [para 24] [1078-F]
F                      Case Law Reference:
      2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 918 held inapplicable para 15
      2008 (11) SCR 1048          held inapplicable para 15
      1989 (1) SCR 130            relied on          para 20
G
      1989 (2) SCR 498            relied on          para 20
      1995 (2) SCR 826            relied on          para 20
      2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 640 relied on              para 20
H
    KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY                  1071
       BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION

  2010 (9) SCR 349              relied on            para 20      A

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 984 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.6.2009 of the High
Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal         B
Appeai No. 1185 of 2006.

                              WITH

Crl. A. No. 1147 of 2012.
                                                                  c
    T.S. Doabia, Sharan Thakur {for Dr. Sushil Balwada),
Rajani K. Prasad (for Abha R. Sharma) for the Appellants.

    Anitha Shenoy, Rashmi Nandakumar for the Respondent.
                                                                  D
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Delay Condoned and Leave granted
in SLP(Crl.) No. 5830 of 2012 (Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition No.23190 of 2011).
                                                                  E
    2. Since both Criminal appeals arise out of the common
judgment of the High Court, we propose to dispose of the
same by this common judgment.

     3. These appeals are directed against the com·mon
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at       F
Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No. 1185 of 2006 and Criminal
Appeal No. 824 of 2006, dated 16.06.2009, whereby and
where under, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal
of accused Nos. A1, A15, A16, A21 and confirmed the order
of conviction of accused Nos. A13 and A14 passed by the           G
Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2002.
The appellants are convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and
sentenced to imprisonment for life.

    4. The facts of the case, in brief, as put forth by the       H
    1072     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A prosecution are:- Shri. Bhimappa Biradar (deceased), the
  father of the Complainant had long standing enmity with
  Mansani family and Sirabur family, as 30 years ago, members
  of Mansani and Sirabur family had murdered the grand father
  of the deceased. Subsequently, this enmity further intensified
B due to political rivalry and their relationship became more
  hostile.

          5. It is the case of prosecution that, at 10.00 am on
    15.09.2001, the deceased Bhimappa Biradar (for short
      Bhimappa') was sitting on the platform of village well and his
C   son PW1 was getting his motor cycle tyres filled with air in the
    shop of PW-11, situated right opposite to the village well. PW-
    4 (grand daughter of deceased) informed the Bhimappa
    (deceased) that his presence was required in his house; the
    Bhimappa (deceased) got up and started proceeding towards
D   his house. At that time, Maningappa Sannasiddappagol (A1)
    holding axe, Tippanna Ningappa Kundaragi (A~ 3) holdir:ig club,
    Shivappa Tippanna Kundaragi (A14) holding axe, Krishnappa
    alias Kristappa Shashappa Bi radar (A 15) holding club,
    Jaggappa Mallappa Biradar (A 16) holding club, Prakash
E   Mallappa Shira bur (A 17) holding chopper and Malappa
    Shashappa Biradar (A21) holding club came running from the
    side of the well. In response to this, the Bhimappa (deceased)
    tried to flee away but the above accused persons caught hold
    of him. Thereafter, the deceased sat down pleading not to
F   assault. A13 and A14 unperturbed to deceased's imploration
    for mercy, assaulted him with axe due to which deceased's
    fingers of hand got cut. He sustained severe head injuries and
    fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A1, A15, A16 and A21
    dragged Bhimappa (deceased ) to a couple of feet to the
G   road. Then, A13, A14 and A17 again assaulted the Bhimappa
    (deceased ) on the neck, shoulders and legs. The above
    accused also threatened the bystanders with dire
    consequences, if any one attempt to intervene to rescue the
    deceased. Thereafter, A2 to A12, A18 to A20, A22 and A24
H   came running to the scene and assaulted the deceased with
   KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY      1073
BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION [H.L. DATTU, J.]

hands and kicked him. After this assault, the above accused       A
persons went away from the scene along with their weapons.

      6. After this incident, PW1 went to his elder brother
Venkappa who was constructing a house and from there, they
both went to Babaleshwar Police Station at about 11: 15 am to
                                                                  8
file a complaint but PSI (SHO)-PW18 was on duty at some
other village. On arrival of PW18, the written complaint of PW1
was lodged at 12:00 Noon. On the basis of said complaint, the
First Information Report dated 15.09.2001 in Crime No. 122/
2001 was registered arid sent to.fue Court of CJM, Bijapur.
                                                                  c
     7. Thereafter, all the accused were arrested within a week
from the date of incident. Further, recoveries of blood stained
weapons used for the commission of offence were made under
a mahazar. The blood stained clothing of the deceased along
with blood stained weapons were sent to the Forensic Science      D
Laboratory. The Serology report and FSL confirmed that stains
on the articles found are of human blood.

    8. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted all the
accused persons for committing offences punishable under          E
Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 (Part II) and 302 read with
Section 149 IPC.

     9. The Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur had taken
cognizance of the offence under Section 193, Cr.P.C. and
registered the case as S.C. No. 82/2002. The learned Judge,       F
on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet,
framed the charges against all the accused persons under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506(Part II) and 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. The accused pleaded that they are totally
innocent and have been falsely implicated.                        G

    10. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution
examined 18 witnesses in support of their case. The accused
persons did not lead any evidence, whatsoever. The learned
Sessions Judge, after recording the statement of the accused
                                                                  H
    1074    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after considering
  the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that A13,
  A 14 and A 17 are directly responsible for the death of deceased
  and therefore, guilty of murder punishable under Section 302
  read with Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge
B acquitted A 1, A 15, A 16 and A21 on the ground that there acts
  are not solely responsible for the death of the deceased as they
  were merely holding Kalli Katagi and just prevented the
  deceased from escaping the assault made by A 13, A 14 and
  A 17 and further, the post mortem report does not disclose any
c abrasion or injury by use of Kalli Katagi.

       11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed by
  the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants, A13, A14 and A17
  preferred Criminal appeal No. 824 of 2006 before the High
  Court. Similarly, the State had carried the matter in Criminal
D appeal No. 1185 of 2006 before the High Court against the
  acquittal of A1, A15, A16 and A21.

       12. The High Court, after perusing the entire evidence on
  record, allowed the appeal filed by the State and found it fit not
E to accept the conclusion of acquittal arrived by the learned
  Sessions Judge with regard to acquittal of A 1, A 15, A 16 and
  A21, convicting them of charges punishable under Section 302
  read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentencing them to
  undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by the
F appellants- A13 and A14 came to be dismissed and the order
  of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Sessions
  Judge was confirmed by the High Court. The High Court has
  allowed the appeal filed by A-17 (Prakash Mallappa Shirabur)
  and the conviction passed against A 17 was. set aside and he
G was acquitted.

        13. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and
    order of sentence passed by the High Court, the present
    appellants-accused are before us in these appeals.

H       14. Shri. T.S. Doabia, learned Senior Counsel appears for
   KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY      1075
BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION [H.L. DATIU, J.]

the accused- A1, A15, A16 and A21 and accused A13 and            A
A14 are represented by Ms. Rajani K. Prasad. Ms. Anita
Shenoy, learned Counsel appears for the State of Kcrrnataka.

      15. Shri. T.S. Doabia, learned Senior Counsel contends
that the view taken by the Trial Court was just and proper and B
the High Court ought not to have interfered with an order of
acquittal. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Trial
Court in its judgment has given plausible and cogent reasons
for acquitting these accused as there was no overt act on their
part which has caused the death of the deceased in terms of
Section 149 of IPC. He would submit that these accused were C
just carrying Kalli Katagi and had not dealt any blow by their
Kalli Katagi on the deceased and this fact is corroborated by
the post mortem report of the deceased. Therefore, they are
not responsible for the murder of the deceased and deserves
to be acquitted. He would submit that PW1 's evidence as an D
eye witness is under serious doubts because PW9 in his
deposition says that PW1 and his brother came to the spot after
30 minutes of the occurrence of the offence and asked him to
accompany them to Police Station to file a complaint. He would
further submit that there are contradictions in the statements of E
the eye witnesses regarding the arrival of the accused on the
spot. PW1 stated that the accused came from behind the
bench of the well. PW3 stated that they came from behind the
road. PW4 says they came from back side of the well, whereas,
PW2, PW5 and PW6 stated that they came from the right side F
of the well. He would further contend that there is another
contradiction in the depositions of the eye witnesses with
respect to the fact whether deceased was dragged or lifted to
the road after the initial assault on his body. The statements of
PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW6 shows that the deceased was G
dragged to the road but the statement of PW2 and PW5 shows
that the deceased was lifted to the road. Shri. Doabia would
rely on the decisions of this__Court in Sahdeo v. State of U.P.,
(2004~ 10 SCC 682 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kish anpal, .
(2008) 16 sec 73 in support of his submissions.                   H
    1076     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A       16. Ms. Rajani K. Prasad, learned Counsel would submit
  that there is a delay in registering the FIR and subsequent delay
  in submitting the same to the Court. She would contend that
  the incident took place at 10:00 am in the morning but the FIR
  was registered at 12:00 Noon, after two hours of the occurrence
B of such a grievous nature of incident. She would further submit
  that this FIR was delivered to the Court of C.J.M., Bijapur at
  6.45 PM, after much unexplained delay, in order to manipulate
  the facts of occurrence of offence.

          17. Per Contra, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned Counsel
C   appearing for the State would submit that Section 149 of IPC
    would squarely apply to the accused in the present case as
    once the membership of unlawful assembly is established, then,
    every member of the group is vicariously liable. She would
    submit that the testimony of all the eye witnesses unanimously
D   depicts that all the accused were carrying weapons and have
    taken active participation in the occurrence of the offence. She
    would subtnit that the incident occurred in a very short span of
    time, therefore any parrot like version cannot be expected from
    the eye witnesses. She would submit that the Statement under
E   Section 166 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same day of the
    incidence. She would further submit that FIR mentions the name
    of all the accused persons and this has been further
    corroborated by two independent witnesses and one witness
    is related to both the complainant and the accused. She would
F   also submit that Kalli Katiga has been recovered from accused-
    A 1, A 15, A 16 and A21, who had prevented the deceased from
    escaping the assault from A13, A14, A17 and they further
    dragged the deceased towards the road after the first assault
    and thereby facilitated A13 and A14 for assaulting the
G   deceased for the second time.

         18. In response to the submissions of Shri. Doabia that
    PW1 came later to the scene, Ms. Shenoy would contend that
    PW1 came back to the scene after half an hour along with his
    brother as explained by PW9 in his deposition and this was
H
   KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY       1077
BABALESHWARA POLICE STATION [H.L. DATTU, J.]

certainly not the first time he came to the spot. She would further   A
submit that there is no delay in filling the FIR as the Complainant
had to travel nearly 30 km on the mud road to reach the Police
Station and thereafter, he waited for half an hour for the Sub
Inspector of Police to arrive at the Police Station.
                                                                      B
     19. In the backdrop of aforesaid arguments advanced by
the parties, we will examine the contentions advanced by the
learned Counsel for the parties with regard to the role of
accused and application of Section 149 of IPC.

     20. It is now well settled law that the provisions of Section C
149 IPC will be attracted whenever any offence committed by
any member of an unlawful assemoly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or when the members of that
assembly knew that offence is likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, so that every person, who, at the time D
of committing of that offence is a member, will be also
vicariously held liable and guilty of that offence. Section 149
IPC ere-ates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members
of the unlawful assembly fof the !Lnlawful acts committed
pursuant to the common object by any other member of that E
assembly. This principle ropes in every member of the assembly
to be guilty of an offence where that offence is committed by
any member of that assembly in prosecution of common object
of that assembly, or such members or assembly knew that
offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. F
[La/ji v. State of U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437; Allauddin Mian v.
State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5; Ranbir Yadav v. State of
Bihar, (1995) 4 sec 392]. The factum of causing injury or not
causing injury would not be relevant, where accused is sought
to be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The relevant G
question to be examined by the court is whether the accused
was a member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he
actually took active part in the crime or not. [State v. Krishan
Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629; Deo Narain v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 298].
                                                                      H
    1078     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A      21. We have carefully perused the relevant records and
  statements of the eye witnesses in the case. In our opinion,
  the prosecution has clearly established with ample evidence
  that accused- A13 and A14 had murdered the deceased. We
  are in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court and High
B Court. Therefore, the High Court is right in dismissing the
  appeal against the order of conviction passed by the learned
  Sessions Judge.

      22. We are also of the opinion that accused- A 1, A 15, A 16
  and A21 were members of the same assembly which has
C caused the murder of the deceased, in terms of Section 149
  IPC, as they had dragged the deceased after first assault and
  contributed in preventing the deceased from escaping the
  assault of A13 and A14. Therefore, accused A1, A15, A16,
  A21 are guilty of murder along with A 13 and A 14 under Section
D 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

        23. We are afraid that the decisions relied on by Shri.
  Doabia, learned Senior Counsel would not come to assist the
  accused, as in the present case, there is clear evidence of overt
E act on the part of the accused- A 1, A 15, A 16 and A21 who
  dragged the deceased and prevented him from escaping the
  fatal assault to his body.

       24. Moreover, the delay in registering FIR is justified as
  the complainant had to travel 30 kms on a mud road to reach
F the Police Station from the scene of crime. Also, the absence
  of S.I. in the Police Station further contributed in delay in
  registering the FIR.

      25. In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
G judgment and order passed by the High Court. Therefore, these
  appeals deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, they are
  dismissed.

         Ordered accordingly.

H R.P.                                         Appeals dismissed.