Holding

Section 149 IPC imposes vicarious liability only when the common object and knowledge of likely commission are established; thus only accused Nos.1‑5 are liable for murder under 302/149, accused Nos.6‑7 for assault under 324 IPC, and accused No.8 is acquitted.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the convictions of eight accused in a gang assault that resulted in the death of Gopikrishna and injuries to Sanjay Patil. The trial court and High Court had convicted all accused under Sections 143, 144, 147, 302/149 and 324/149 IPC. On appeal, the Court distinguished two separate assaults – one on the deceased by accused Nos.1‑5 and another on the injured witness by accused Nos.6‑8 – and held that Section 149 IPC applies only when the common object and the knowledge of likely commission are proved. Consequently, only accused Nos.1‑5 were held liable for murder under 302 read with 149, while accused Nos.6‑7 were liable only for simple assault under 324 IPC. Accused No.8 (Rajendra Todankar) was acquitted as the medical evidence did not support the alleged participation. The Court set aside the convictions under 324/149 for the relevant accused and modified the sentences accordingly.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 149 IPC to hold all members of an unlawful assembly vicariously liable for murder and assault.
Whether the prosecution proved a common object and knowledge of likely commission for each accused.
Whether the convictions under 302/149 and 324/149 IPC against the accused are sustainable.
The role of medical evidence in attributing injuries to accused No.8.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 144, s. 147, s. 149, s. 302, s. 324

Subjects

Section 149vicarious liabilityunlawful assemblymurderassaultcommon objectevidenceacquittalconviction modification

Judgment

A RAJENDRA SHANTARAM TODANKAR
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JANUARY 7, 2003

B [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 143, 144, 147, 3021149 and 3241149-Prosecution
of8 accused-For causing death ofone and injury to another person-Evidence
C revealing that the accused who caused death did not cause injury to another
person-Injuries and the role attributed to one of the accused causing injury
not corroborated by medical evidence-Conviction by trial Court of all the
accused-Upheld by High Court-On appeal, held-Conviction of all the
accused ofall the charges by application ofSection 149 not justified-Accused
causing death convicted uls 3021149 while acquitted u/s 3241149-Accused
D causing injury convicted only u/s 3241149-Prosecution case not proved against
accused alleged for causing injury-Hence acquitted of all the charges.
/
S. 149-Vicarious liability of member of unlawful assembly for criminal
act committed by another member of the assembly-Ascertaining of-Held,
merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the assembly
E every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for such
criminal act-The inference as to likelihood of the commission of the criminal
act must be capable of being held to be within the knowledge of another
member of the assembly who is sought to be held vicariously liable for the
said criminal act.

F Appellant-accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 8 alongwith accused l to 4 were
tried for offences u/ss. 143, 144, 147, 302/149 and 324/149 IPC.

Prosecution case was that all the accused persons came armed with
deadly weapons and opened an assault on three persons (PWs 3, 4 and
the deceased). PWl who was standing at a distance apprehended attack
G and ran away. Some of the accused chased him and inflicted injuries on
him. Accused, deceased and prosecution witnesses belonged to adjoining
localities. Testimony of eye witnesses revealed that deceased was assaulted
by accused Nos. l to 5 and PWl was assaulted by other accused persons.
Accused No. 8, a government servant, took the plea of false implication.
H The injuries specifically attributed to him and the role assigned to him
10
R.S. TODANKAR v. STATE OF Mf\HARASHTRA II
by PWs 1 and 5 were not corroborated by medical evidence, Trial Court A
con~icted all the accused of all the offences. High Court confirmed the
conviction. During pendency of the appeal before Higll Court accused 3
and. 4 died. Accused 1 and 2 had filed a11peals lwfore this Court which
were dismissed. Present appeals are by acc11sed J, 5, 6 and 8.

Partly allowing the appeals, tl\Q Court B
HELD: 1. A careful fi>ndln11 of the testimony of the eyewitnesses
reveals that while aeeused Nos.1 to 5 assaulted the deceased, the other three
accused persons have allegedly participated in assault on PWJ. In fact,
there are two incidents of assault which have taken place in quick
succession. The nature of the guilt attributable to the accused persons or C
the criminal liability which can be fastened 011 them shall have to be
determined by reference to the two assaults. There is no material available
pn record to hold that the deceased and tile injured PWl had anything to
do with each other or the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly
of eight persons was to cause the death of the deceased as also to cause D
injuries to PWl and such co111mon object was shared by all the eight
accused persons. [16-H; 17-A-C)

2. Unless the applicability of Section 149.eitber clause-is attracted
and the Court is convince<\ on facts and in law both, of liability capable
of being fastened vicariously by reference to either clause of Section 149 E
lPC merely because a criminal act Wiii committed by a member of the
assembly every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable
for such criminal act. The inference as to likelihood of the commission of
the given criminal act must be capable of being held to be within the
knowledge of another member of the assembly who is sought to be held
vicariously liable for the ~aid criminal act. It is difficult though not F
impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An inference may
be drawn from circumstance~ such as the background of the incident, the
motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the
members of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the
members soon before, at 11r 11ner tho actual commission of the crime. G
(17-H; 18-A-C]

3. Regarding accused Nos.I to 5 It can be inferred that they were
the members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons formed
with the common object of fatally injuring the deceased so as to cause his
death. If death has been caused In prosecution of common object of H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] l S.C.R.

A unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to record a definite and specific
finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful
assembly caused the fatal injury. Once an unlawful assembly has come
into existence, each member of the assembly becomes vicariously liable
for the criminal act of any other member of the assembly committed in
B prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Witnesses do not
attribute any overt act qua PW-1 to the accused Nos. l to 5. Assault on
PW l was not pre-planned, not shared as common object by accused nos.
l to 5. No unlawful assembly was in existence nor formed into being at
the spur of the moment so far as the assault on PW l is concerned. The
conviction of accused Nos. 3 and 5 u/s 302 r/w Section 149 IPC are
C maintained. Their conviction u/s 324 r/w Section 149 is set aside.
[18-E-H; 19-A; 20-C-DJ

4. The injuries specifically attributed to accused No. 8 by PWs l and
S and consequently the role assigned to him in the incident is belied by
medical evidence. PW-3 and PW-4 have not mentioned even his presence
D much less any participation by him in the assault. This accused is in
government service. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that he has
been falsely implicated. His participation in the incident is rendered
doubtful. His conviction is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges
framed against him. [19-E, F; 20-B)

E 5. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 cannot be held to be the members of the
unlawful assembly, which assaulted the deceased. Their assault on PW-1
is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, they can each be held liable
only for an offence punishable u/s 324 IPC. Conviction of accused 6 under
Section 302/149 IPC as also under Sections 143, 144 and 147 IPC is set
F aside. He is held guilty under Section 324 IPC. [19-G, H; 20-A]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
651-652 of 2001.
'j

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.2000 of the Mumbai High
Court in Crl. A. No. 692 of 1995.

S.B. Sanyal, Sanjay K. Visen, Manoj K. Mishra. Devashish Bharuka
and Ajit S. Bhasme for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 651/200 l and Ajit S.
Bhasme for the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 651/200 I.

R. Sundravardan, Sunil Kr. Verma and S.M. Jadhav for the Appellant
H in Crl. A. No. 652/2001.
R.S. TODANKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 13

Ravi K. Adsure and S.S. Shinde for V.N. Raghupathy for the A
Respondents.
\
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. Eight accused persons, namely, Ashok Bhikaji Gurav
(accused no.I), Nathuram Bhikaji Gurav (accused no.2), Santosh @ Kalya B
Jagannath Shirwadkar (accused n0:3), Santosh @ Babya Dashrath Nagvekar
(accused no.4), Ravindra @ Bobby Anant Surve (accused no.5), Anant @
Papya Jagannath Shirodkar (accused no.6), Prakash. @ Vatanya Laxman
Pednekar (accused no.7) and Rajendra Shantaram Todankar (accused no.8)
were tried on several charges framed under Sections 143, 144, 147, 302, 302/
149, 302/34, 307, 307/149, 307/34, 324, 324/149, 324/34 and 324/511 IPC. c
On trial all the accused persons were held to have committed offences
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 302/149 and 324/149 IPC. For
offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC each of the accused
persons was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000, in default of payment to suffer further R.I. for 6 months. For offence D
under Section 324/149 IPC each of the accused was sentenced to suffer RI.
for 6 months. Though all the accused were also convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 144 and .147 of the IPC but no separate
sentences were awarded thereon. All the eight accused persons preferred an
appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal Santosh @
Babya Dashrath Nagvekar and Prakash @ Vatanya Laxman Pednekar - the E
accused numbers 4 and 7, died. The appeal surviving for decision as regards
the six accused was held liable to be dismissed upholding the conviction as
recorded and the sentences as passed by the Trial Court.

Ashok Bhikaji, accused no. I and Nathuram Bhikaji accused. no.2 filed
SLP (Cr!.) No.3738/2000 which was dismissed as not admitted by this Court
F
.'v
on 25.1.2001. Accused no.8, Rajendra Todankar filed SLP(Crl.) 4205/00
which 'has been registered as Cr!. Appeal No. 65112001 on leave to appeal
having been granted. SLP (Cr!.) preferred by Santosh Shirwadkar, Ravindra
Surve and Anant Shirodkar (accused nos.3, 5 and 6) has been registered as
Criminal Appeal No.652/02 on leave being granted. Thus, in substance it is G
the guilt of the accused nos. 3, 5, 6 and 8 which survives for determination
in these appeals.
).
For the sake of convenience the accused persons shall be referred to by
their numbers as they were arrayed before the Sessions Court. Reference to
accused nos. 1 and 2 though their SLP(Crl) has been dismissed and to accused H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A nos.4 and 7, who have died during the pendency of their appeal in the High
Court i~ being made where necessary only for the purpose of determining the )-
guilt of the accus~d~.appellants before us.

In the locality knQW!l as Prabhadevi situated within the jurisdiction of
police station Dadar of Mumbai there is a place known as Hatiskar Wadi.
B Nariman Bhat Nagar is an adjoining locality. One Mukesh Purav resides in
Hatiskar Wadi. Ashok Gurav, accu~ed no.I resides in Nariman Bhat Nagar.
These two persons are ring-leaders of their respective gangs formed in the
two localities and they are involved in various illegal activities. The injured
persons and the accused persons are residents of these two localities and were
C known to each other since before the incident. An acute rivalry prevails
between the two groups. Prior to this incident on the festival of Janmashtami
there was a competitive game played known as Dahi Handi, also known as
'Govinda', wherein both the gangs had participated and quarrelled with each
other. The present incident took place on 27th September, 1991 at about 8.30
p.m.
D
There is a four-storeyed building the ground-floor whereof is occupied
by a restaurant known as 'Sanket Bar'. There is a road in front of the hotel.
The door leading to the way for upper floors of the building is by the side
of the hotel. There is a pan shop near the hotel. By the side of the hotel there
are other shops providing the look of a commercial complex.
E
Gopikrishna, who die!'.! in the incident, was standing in front of the
entrance door of the building. Jaideep Bhosale, PW3 and Dyandeo Sawant,
PW4 were standing near Gopikrishna. The three were busy talking to each
other. At a little distance from there one Sanjay Patil, PW! was standing.
F Apparently, Sanjay Patil and the trio consisting of Jaideep, Dyandeo and
Gopikrishna had nothing to do with each other. Sanjay, PWI saw all the
eight appellants coming towards the hotel. The accused persons passed by his
side and reached the place where the three persons including Gopikrishna
were chit-chatting. The accused persons were anned with naked weapons
such as swords; choppers and gupti. As soon as they reached near Gopikrishna
G they opened an assault on all the three persons standing there. Jaideep and
Dyandeo ran away from the place. Gopikrishna tried to escape for his life by
running towards the door providing access to the staircase leading to upper
floors of the building. He went on running upto the fourth floor leaving a
trail of blood behind. The accused persons chased him and injured him fatally.
H He fell down in a pool of blood on the landing of the fourth floor.
- R.S. TODANKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (R.C. LAHOT!, J.]

Sanjay, PWI apprehended that he may be assaulted and injured. He
15
A
-· tried to run away from the place of the incident. He was noticed by the
appellants; some of them followed him and inflicted injuries on his person.

The appellants then shouted loudly so as to create terror in the locality.
The frightened neighbours downed the shutters of their shops and houses.
The appellants ran away. Sanjay, PW.I picked up a taxi and proceeded to B
KEM hospital for medical help and treatment. In the meantime the witnesses
Jaideep and Dyandeo returned to the place of the incident. They reached the
fourth floor and found Gopikrishna lying injured and bleeding profusely.
They brought him down and removed him to KEM hospital where he was
declared dead. A police constable on duty at the hospital flashed a message
to the police station whereon PSI Agarkar and Pl Pisa! rushed to the hospital
c
with police force. The statement of Sanjay was recorded, got signed by him
and sent to the police station where it was registered as FIR of the incident
at 11.30 p.m. The investigation commenced. Inquest on the dead body of
Gopikrishna was held. His clothes were seized. Autopsy on the dead body
•· was performed by Dr. Subhash, PW14. The following injuries were found on D
his person :

(i) Incised wound on back of head, 4 cm x 1.0 t;m. x muscle deep.
On right side of midline in pareieto-occipital region
(ii) Incised stab wound on left gluteal fold. Oblique wound. Lower
E
and pointed upper end. Blunt regged contused. Dimensions : 2.5
cm x 0.8 cm x deep in muscles.
(iii) Incised wound on right thumb palmar aspect. Vertical wound 1.5
cm x 0.5 cm.
(iv) Scratch on right occipital bone outer table in base of injury no.I F
.... with contusion in layer of scalp deep to the injury .

On dissecting, the injury no.2 was found to be deep in gluteal
muscles and had cut in gluteal vessels with extensive haemorrhage
found in muscles. Total. depth of injury was 15.0 cm.
G
In the opinion of Dr. Subhash, the cause of death was haemorrhage and
shock due to injury to major blood vessels by sharp-edged weapons. All the
;..
injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. When Dr. Subhash was examined in the Court he stated that the
injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by weapons like gupti
and chopper. Though buttock is not a vital organ of the body but in case of H
•

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] l S.C.R.

A the deceased important blood vessels in the buttock were injured and so the
death was caused. In spite of having sustained the injuries, the deceased
could have run and climbed the stairs to save his life.

Sanjay Patil, PWI was medico-legally examined by Dr. Subhash Shivade
who prepared the memo of injuries. However by the time the trial commenced
B · Dr. Shivade had left the Government service and gone to England. Dr. Arun,
PW17, who had worked with Dr. Shivade, was examined. He proved the
memo of injuries containing the particulars of the injuries suffered by Sanjay,
PWI.

The following injuries were found on the person of Sanjay Patil :
c
(l) Incised wound in right perictal region 6 x 2 cm, bone deep

(2) Incised wound on right elbow, joint opened. I

(3) Multiple abrasions on back and right scapula. ---
D (4) Stab injuries on right hypocondrium (abdomen) 2.5 x 2x3 ems,
about 4 ems from the subcostal region, about l 0 ems lateral to
the mid line.

In the opinion of Dr. Arun, looking to the nature of injuries, death was
unlikely from such injuries. The injuries could have been caused by weapons
E like gupti and chopper. There was no bony injury. No vital organ of the body
was cut or damaged.

The prosecution case hinges upon the testimony of four witnesses,
namely, Sanjay Patil (PW-I), Jaideep (PW-3), Dyandeo Sawant (PW-4) and
Prashant (PW-5). We will analyse the testimony of these four witnesses so as
F to find out the nature of the offence committed and the involvement of the
accused persons. Whether all the accused persons, as alleged, were involved .1.
in the incident, and if so, to what extent ?

We have already noticed that the localities to which the accused persons
G and the deceased and the witnesses belong are situated adjoining each other.
The presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence can be natural
as well. Though the witnesses have deposed to all the eight accused persons
having come together at the place of the incident and all the accused persons
having assaulted the deceased Gopikrishna and the injured Sanjay ~atil (PW-
1), however, a closer scrutiny of the testimony of the eyewitnesses reveals
H that, in fact, there are two incidents of assault which have taken place in

..
R.S. TODANKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [R.C. LAHOTI, l.] 17

quick succession. The nature of the guilt attributable to the accused persons A
or the criminal liability which can be fastened on them shall have to be
determined by reference to the two assaults. There is no material available on
record to hold that the deceased Gopikrishna and the injured Sanjay Patil had
anything to do with each other or the common object of the alleged unlawful
assembly of eight persons was to cause the death of Gopikrishna as also to
cause injuries to Sanjay Patil and such common object was shared by all the B
eight accused persons. A careful reading of the testimony of the eyewitnesses

~
reveals that while accused Nos. 1 to 5 assaulted the deceased Gopjkrishna,
the other three accused persons have allegedly participated in assault on
I
Sanjay Patil. We are referring to assault by three accused persons, namely,
accused Nos. 6 to 8 on Sanjay Patil by way of stating the prosecution case C
because as we will discuss shortly hereinafter, we have grave doubts if
Rajendra Todankar, the accused No. 8, had really participated in the assault
and, therefore, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case he deserves
to be allowed benefit of doubt.

Section I49 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if an offence is D
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. The two clauses of Section 149 vary in E
degree of certainty. The first clause contemplates the commission of an offence
by any member of an unlawful assembly which can be held to have been
committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. The second
clause embraces within its fold the commission of an act which may not
necessarily be the common object of the assembly nevertheless the members
of the assembly had knowledge of likelihood of the commission of that F
offence in prosecution of the common object. The common object may be
commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of the commission
of yet another offence the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely
attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly. In either case every
member of the assembly would be vicariously liable for the offence actually G
committed by any other member of the assembly. A mere possibility of the
commission of the offence would not necessarily enable the Court to draw an
inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence was within the
knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficult indeed,
though not impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An
inference may be drawn from circumstances such as the background of the H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms
carried by the members of the assembly, their common object and the
behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual commission of
the crime. Unless the applicability of Section 149 either clause is attracted
and the Court is convinced, on facts and in law both, of liability capable of
B being fastened vicariously by reference to either clause of Section 149 of IPC
merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the assembly
every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for such
criminal act. The inference as to likelihood of the commission of the given
criminal act must be capable of being held to be within the knowledge of
another member of the assembly who is sought to be held vicariously liable
C for the said criminal act. These principles are settled. Applying these tests to
the facts found proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused nos. I to 5 can
be held liable for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC for the assault
resulting in death of Gopi Krishna while accused nos. 6 and 7 can be held
liable for their individual acts of assault committed on Sanjay Patil.

D They are the accused Nos. I to 5 who had assaulted the deceased and
followed him upto the 4th floor. The accused Nos. I to 5 armed severally
with deadly weapons having initially assault~d the deceased Gopikrishna
when he was standing on the ground floor, chased him by following him on
the staircase leading to the 4th floor where he fell ~own in the pool of blood. · ·
E So far as accused Nos. I to 5 are concerned, it can be safely inferred that they
were the members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons formed
with the common object of fatally injuring the deceased Gopikrishna so as to
cause his death. Their conviction for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149
IPC is liable to be sustained. If death l,las been caused in prosecution of
common object of unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to record a definite
F and specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the
unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. Once an unlawful assembly has
come into existence, each member of the assembly becomes vicariously liable
for the criminal act of any other member of the assembly committed in
prosecution of the common object of the assembly.

G So far as the assault on Sanjay Patil (PW-I) is concerned, the witnesses
do not attribute any overt act qua Sanjay Patil (PW-I) to the accused Nos.
I to 5. It appears that while beating the retreat. some of the accused other
than accused nos. l to 5 noticed Sanjay Patil and diverted themselves to an
assault on him. Assault on Sanjay Patil was not pre-planned nor shared as
H common object by accused nos.I to 5. No unlawful assembly was in existence
R.S. TODANKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (R.C. LAHOTI, I.) 19

nor formed into being at the spur of the moment so far as the assault on A
-; Sanjay Patil is concerned.

We would like to deal specifically with the case of Rajendra Todankar
(accused No.8). According to Sanjay Patil (PW-I}, he was assaulted by three
accused persons, namely, Anant @ Papya (accused No. 6) who stabbed on
the right side of the stomach with a gupti; by Prakash Pednekar @ Vatanya B
(accused No. 7) who dealt a sword blow on the right side of upper head and
by Rajendra Todankar (accused No. 8) who dealt sura (dragger) blows on his
back twice and on the left arm near elbow, whereafter he fell down, During
cross-examination he stated that the accused Rajendra Todankar had used his
weapon with force while assaulting on him. Prashant (PW-5) states Vatanya
(accused No. 7) and Rajendra Todankar (accused No. 8) assaulted Sanjay
c
Patil. According to this witness, the weapon said to have been used by Rajendra
Todankar was a chopper. During cross-examination he stated that Rajendra
-~
Todankar had dealt chopper blows forcefully on Sanjay. He further stated
that the accused Babya had also stabbed Sanjay. Apart from the fact that
there is divergence in the statements of the two witnesses as to the weapon D
which is attributed to accused no.8, what is more significant is that injuries
by chopper or sura (dragger)' are not to be found on the back of Sanjay and
in the manner in which the two witnesses stated the injuries having been
' caused to Sanjay forcefully. Such use of sharp weapon would not result in ·
•. _;..
mere abrasion on the back. There is no injury on the left arm of Sanjay (PW-
E
I). Thus, the injuries specifically attributed to accused Rajendra Todankar by
Sanjay (PW-I) and Prashant (PW-5) and consequently the role assigned to
him in the incident is belied by medical evidence. Jaideep (PW-3) and Dyandeo
Sawant (PW-4) have not mentioned even the presence of Rajendra Todankar
much less any participation by him in the assault. This accused Rajendra
Todankar is in government service. In his statement u/s 313 CrPC he stated F
that he is a social worker whose activities are not to the liking of Mukesh
Purav, the gang leader, and that is the reason why he has been falsely
implicated. The participation of Rajendra Todankar (accused No. 8) in the
incident is rendered doubtful.

So far as the accused Anartt@ Papya (accused No. 6) and Prakash @ G
Vatanya (accused No. 7) are concerned, they cannot be held to be the members
....\ of the unlawful assembly, which assaulted Gopikrishna. Their assault on
Sanjay Patil (PW-I) is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Each one of them
has caused simple injuries by sharp weapon on the person of Sanjay Patil.
Therefore, they can each be held liable only for an offence punishable u/s
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A 324 IPC. Their conviction under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, so far as the
murder of Gopikrishna is concerned, cannot be sustained and must be set
aside. So also their conviction under Sections 143, 144 and 147 IPC must go.

For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 651 of2001 preferred
by Rajendra Shantaram Todankar (accused No. 8 ln the Trial Court) is allowed.
B His conviction is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against
him. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection
with any other offence.

In Criminal Appeal ,No. 652 of 2001 the appellants are Santosh @
C Kalya (A-3), Ravinder @ Bobby (A-5) and Anant @ Papya Shirodkar (A-6).
The conviction of accused Santosh @ Kalya (A-3) and Ravinder @ Bobby
(A-5) under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC along with the sentence of imprisonment
for life are maintained. Their conviction under Section 324/149 IPC is set
aside. So far as accused Anant @ Papya Shirodkar (A-6) is concerned, his
conviction under Section 302/149 IPC as also under Sections 143, 144 and
D 147 IPC is set aside. He is held guilty under Section 324 IPC and for this
offence sentence of R.I. for 6 months is maintained. Criminal Appeal No.
652 of 200 I is allowed in part to this extent.

K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed.