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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the first information statement and the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses were reliable despite the challenge that the report was fabricated and the witnesses did not assign specific overt acts to each accused; (ii) Whether the omission to specifically mention Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in the murder charges vitiated the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue (i): Whether the first information statement and the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses were reliable despite the challenge that the report was fabricated and the witnesses did not assign specific overt acts to each accused.
Analysis: The statement recorded at the hospital was accepted as genuine because the medical officer certified that the injured witness was fit to speak and the police recorded the statement in his presence. The prompt transmission of the report to the Magistrate also supported its authenticity. The injured eyewitnesses were found to be natural witnesses whose evidence was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances. In a large-scale group assault, the absence of meticulous attribution of individual blows was treated as insignificant, since the witnesses had consistently identified the assailant group and their account was otherwise trustworthy.
Conclusion: The challenge to the first information statement and eyewitness evidence failed, and the prosecution version was accepted.
Issue (ii): Whether the omission to specifically mention Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in the murder charges vitiated the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: The charges read as a whole informed the accused that they were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and to have attacked the deceased in prosecution of a common object. In such a setting, the ingredients of constructive liability were implicit even if Section 149 was not expressly named in the murder charges. The governing principle is that a conviction is not to be set aside for a defect or omission in the charge unless it has caused prejudice or a failure of justice. On the facts, no prejudice was shown, and the accused had full notice of the nature of the accusation.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not vitiated by the omission to expressly mention Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was upheld in full, the conviction and sentence were sustained, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the charge, read as a whole, sufficiently apprises the accused that murder is alleged in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, omission to expressly cite Section 149 does not invalidate the conviction unless actual prejudice or failure of justice is shown.
TaxTMI 
