Summary
The Supreme Court upheld five appellants’ convictions for an unlawful assembly’s fatal assault but acquitted Khemuram and Lakhan on benefit of doubt. Membership had to be proved individually despite proof of the assembly’s murderous object. Consistency among eyewitnesses required assessment of the whole account and corroborating circumstances, rather than mechanical repetition of every name. The brutal dragging and beating established an intention to kill and did not warrant reduction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues
- Whether each appellant’s membership of the murderous unlawful assembly was proved and whether the killing warranted a lesser homicide conviction.
Held
- Once the unlawful assembly and common object were established, proof of a specific overt act by every member was unnecessary. The prosecution still had to establish each accused’s membership beyond reasonable doubt. The extensive injuries and manner of assault proved a common object to kill. (¶¶ 14, 24)
- Quality rather than number of witnesses governs. In a large assembly case, consistency across witnesses is a useful safeguard, but it does not require every witness to repeat every name. The entire account and corroborating recoveries must be assessed; reliable parts of a hostile witness’s testimony may also be used. (¶¶ 15, 15.1, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21.2)
- The eyewitness account and corroborating circumstances established membership of Bharosaram, Duleshwar, Bhanjan Singh, Keshav Prasad and Nand Kumar. Nand Kumar was expressly named despite the State’s contrary submission. (¶¶ 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.6, 22)
- The name Hemu was not clarified as referring to Khemuram, and a blood-stained lathi alone did not prove his participation. Lakhan lacked sufficient corroboration; rejection of his alibi did not remove the prosecution’s reasonable-doubt deficit. Both were entitled to acquittal. (¶¶ 21.5, 21.7, 22)
- Dragging the victim by his legs while repeatedly beating him, causing widespread fractures and fatal internal injuries, established intention to kill and supplied no basis to substitute Section 304 Part I for the murder conviction. (¶ 24)
Result
Criminal Appeal Nos.1813 and 1815 of 2017 dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.1814 of 2017 partly allowed: Khemuram (A-8) and Lakhan (A-13) acquitted on benefit of doubt and directed to be released unless required in another case. Convictions of the other five appellants under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC upheld.