Ingredients To Constitute Unlawful Assembly Lacking, Altercation Has All Trappings Of A "Free-Fight": Rajasthan HC Modifies Trial Court Order
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed and set aside conviction of five accused persons for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries/ murder, observing that the incident was nothing but a "freeThe Division Bench comprising Justices Rameshwar Vyas and Sandeep Mehta observed,"We have no hesitation in holding that the ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly...
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed and set aside conviction of five accused persons for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries/ murder, observing that the incident was nothing but a "free
The Division Bench comprising Justices Rameshwar Vyas and Sandeep Mehta observed,
"We have no hesitation in holding that the ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly are totally lacking in this case and hence, the implication of accused persons by virtue of Section 149 IPC is unwarranted and unsustainable".
Taking note of the facts of the case and the circumstances that led to an altercation between the complainants and the accused, it added,
"the incident has all trappings of a free-fight between the two parties without there being any motive for the accused to launch an assault with the intention to commit murder of any person from the complainant party."
The court, however, upheld their conviction under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. Three of the accused were also convicted under Section 325 for causing grievous hurt and two were convicted under Section 302 for Murder of one.
Background
The accused, being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences by the Trial Court, had preferred an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C
The facts of this case are based on the allegations made by the complainant. He alleged that appellants threatened to take revenge against Rawalram (PW.5), by killing him, on the premise that he had given out their names in an incident involving assault on a roadways' bus driver.
The complainant alleged that when he along with Rawalram were sitting around a Kirana Store, the appellants, armed with weapons, launched an assault on Rawalram with the intention of killing him. Meanwhile, other witnesses of this case also intervened and got injured.
Thereafter, an FIR was filed, however, one Kishanram who was also involved in the brawl died.
Accordingly, the five accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149 and 302/149 of IPC.
After thoroughly analyzing the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and medical experts, the High Court ruled that the present incident has all trappings of a free-fight between the two parties without there being any motive for the accused to launch an assault with the intention to commit murder of any person from the complainant party.
The court ruled this while observing that the altercation started outside at a Kirana Store where both the sides started fighting with each other. During the melee, the deceased Kishanram and the injured prosecution witness-Virendra ran towards the Meera Nagar lane. It is alleged that the accused also followed and the fight continued.
The court added that as per the admitted prosecution case, assault was initiated by the accused persons on Rawalram (PW.5), while Kishanram (the deceased) and Virendra (PW.4) came to the spot, subsequently as interveners.
The court further added that after interveners arrived at the spot, the parties ran towards Meera Nagar lane and continued the fight. "Manifestly, thus, only Virendra (PW.4) could have witnessed the incident, wherein Kishanaram was beaten up because Virendra (PW.4) also sustained injuries in the same process", observed the court.
The court observed that as per the pertinent allegation, injuries were inflicted to Kishanaram with iron rods by Madhuram and Jetharam. Tarachand allegedly inflicted blows with iron pipe to Virendra, who in his testimony did not utter a single word that anyone other than these three accused persons were present at the spot where Kishanaram was assaulted. In furtherance of this, the court held that the involvement of the accused Tarachand, Pannaram, Sumer, Birmaram and Madanlal in this case by invoking Section 149 IPC is totally unjustified.
The court observed that the case of the accused Madhuram and Jetharam is covered by clauses firstly and thirdly of Section 300 IPC and does not fall within any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC.
The court, therefore, ruled that as far as the accused Madhuram and Jetharam are concerned, their conviction as recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is absolutely justified and need not be toned down.
Case Title: Madhuram and Ors v. State of Rajasthan, with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 10