TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the evidence established the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing and burning the members of the marriage party, and whether the accused were members of that assembly; (ii) whether the acquittal of certain accused could be sustained when their participation was identified by multiple eyewitnesses and the riotous attack was proved.
Issue (i): Whether the evidence established the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing and burning the members of the marriage party, and whether the accused were members of that assembly.
Analysis: The occurrences after the initial quarrel showed that the assembly, even if lawful at its inception, became unlawful when the violence began. The burning of the house in which members of the marriage party were trapped, the pursuit and killing of others in the fields, and the scale and nature of injuries supported the inference that the group shared a common object to kill the members of the marriage party. The common object was inferred from the conduct of the crowd, the weapons used, and the resulting deaths, and the assembly continued until the incident ended.
Conclusion: The existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the members of the marriage party was proved.
Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal of certain accused could be sustained when their participation was identified by multiple eyewitnesses and the riotous attack was proved.
Analysis: In a large riot involving many assailants and victims, exact attribution of individual acts is not essential if the witnesses consistently establish participation in the unlawful assembly. The evidence of injured eyewitnesses and the house owner who saw the burning was accepted to the extent it was corroborated by other witnesses. At the same time, benefit of doubt was given where identification was not supported by a sufficient number of witnesses or where the alibi evidence created real doubt. Applying that standard, some acquittals were upheld, while the identified accused who were consistently named were held liable under the substantive offences read with Section 149.
Conclusion: The acquittal of some accused was upheld, but the acquittal of the identified accused was set aside and they were convicted.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the Court affirmed acquittal for some accused, but convicted the remaining identified accused for rioting, murder, arson, causing hurt and attempt to murder on the basis of unlawful assembly and common object.
Ratio Decidendi: In riot cases, an unlawful assembly and its common object may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the crowd, the weapons used, and the result of the attack, and membership in such an assembly may be fixed on the basis of consistent corroborated identification by eyewitnesses.
TaxTMI 
