Summary
Persons convicted of murder with unlawful-assembly liability challenged defects in the charge, their examination under Section 313 and the eyewitness evidence. The Court found no demonstrated prejudice, accepted the injured witnesses despite missing injury reports, and held that the surrounding and coordinated assaults established a common object. The convictions were affirmed.
Issues
- Whether defects in the charge or Section 313 examination caused prejudice warranting interference.
- Whether the evidence established common-object liability for murder.
Provisions considered
- Section 464(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An inadvertent defect in the rioting charge did not invalidate the conviction absent an actual failure of justice. (¶ 9)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused had been asked about participation in the assembly, its murderous common object and injuries to witnesses; omission of separate individual-assault questions caused no prejudice on these facts. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- The accused knew that six persons faced charges under Sections 302/149 and 323/149 and that spears were used. Naming only four in the Section 147 charge was an inadvertent omission causing no shown prejudice; the belated objection did not justify reversal. (¶ 9)
- Although one claimed eyewitness arrived after the assault, the other two witnesses’ presence and injuries were credible. The trial judge noticed scars and the investigating officer confirmed obtaining injury reports. Their absence from the record was defective investigation, insufficient here to discredit the witnesses. (¶ 10)
- Section 313 safeguards a fair opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances. Prejudice is assessed cumulatively from the evidence, questions and defence, rather than presumed from every omission. Relevant allegations were put, the appellants merely denied them, and neither procedural irregularity nor prejudice was established. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Surrounding the deceased to prevent escape, the initial head blow and subsequent spear attacks supported a common object. The differing locations of individual blows did not warrant reducing the appellants’ liability. (¶ 17)
Result
The appeals were dismissed and the convictions and concurrent sentences maintained. Bail bonds were cancelled and the appellants directed to surrender forthwith to serve their remaining sentences.