Nagesar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 147 , Section 148 , Section 302 , Section 304
Culpable homicide - Conviction - Benefit of doubt - Sustainability - Appellants (accused no. 6 and 7) and co-accused persons were allegedly committed offence - Trial Court convicted - Aggrieved appellants and co-accused persons filed appeals before HC - HC by impugned common judgment partly allowed the appeals by setting aside conviction and sentence imposed for offence u/s. 148 of IPC and altered conviction u/s. 302 of IPC to s. 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced them to under to RI for 6 years - Aggrieved appellants filed instant appeals - Appellants contended that they were not named in FIR and the eye witness 'R' in his testimony had not mentioned the names of appellants as having been present during the occurrence and even the other eye witness had not attributed any overt act to appellants in the attack made on the deceased and their presence at the occurrence place is itself doubtful - Held, names of appellants were not mentioned in FIR and in facts of the case a doubt was created in the mind as to whether they could be really involved in the offence - It was settled law that mere presence or association with other members alone did not per se be sufficient to hold every-one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there was sufficient evidence on record to show that one such also intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act - In the absence of reliable evidence to prove that appellants were either present on the spot or that they had committed any overt act that could show that they share the common object of unlawful assembly it was not possible to support their conviction and benefit of doubt had to be given to them - Appellants were given benefit of doubt and conviction and sentences imposed on them were set aside and were acquitted of all charges framed against them - Appeals allowed.
Topic(s)-