This blog delves into the intricate legal analysis of group liability in a significant homicide case. The court’s examination of vicarious liability and common intention sheds light on the nuances of criminal law and the implications for individuals involved in group criminal activities. Stay tuned to unravel the court’s findings and insights.
Facts
- Accused persons were involved in a quarrel outside Hotel Intercity, leading to a violent altercation.
- Accused Manoj snatched the gun from Jai and shot deceased Gudda.
- Post-Mortem Reports revealed multiple gunshot injuries on the deceased.
- There was abusive talk between accused persons and the deceased.
- Accused Jai and Manoj were heavily involved in the violent confrontation.
- Witnesses observed the entire incident, including the shooting of Gudda and Nanka.
- Accused persons fled the scene after the shootings.
- Various firearms were recovered from the accused individuals.
- The cause of death was determined to be homicidal due to gunshot injuries.
- The High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted accused.
- The convicted accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of IPC, with additional charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act for some accused.
- The accused persons did not try to pacify the dispute or prevent the firing by Jai and Manoj, indicating a common objective to commit murder.
- The substantive sentence for the offences under Sections 302 and Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC was life imprisonment, along with additional term sentences for other offences.
- The eyewitnesses’ evidence and the accused persons’ conduct supported the finding that all accused had a common object of committing murder.
- The eyewitnesses testified that the accused surrounded the deceased persons, with Jai pointing a pistol at one of them, leading to fatal gunshot injuries.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- Principal role in the crime attributed to Manoj Aggarwal and Jai @ Gudda Jaiswal
- Role of the appellants before the Court limited to being part of a group with oral altercation
- No commonality in action to hold the appellants guilty under Section 149 of the IPC
- Argument by Mr. Roy that evidence indicates complete participation of the appellants in the crime
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Accused Jai @ Gudda Jaiswal took out a firearm during a scuffle.
- Manoj Aggarwal snatched the firearm and fired at Gudda Sonkar.
- Another shot was fired at Gudda Sonkar.
- Accused Jai @ Gudda Jaiswal regained possession of the firearm and shot Nanka Ghore.
- Eye-witness accounts consistently implicate the appellants in the exhortation and scuffle.
- Cross-examination did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses.
- Appellants actively participated in the altercation and urged for the killing of Gudda Sonkar.
- Witnesses confirmed the presence of the appellants throughout the incident.
- Appellants were observed pushing the deceased individuals during the initial scuffle.
- The convicted individuals were rightly found guilty under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC.
- Their participation was full and effective, making them unable to escape vicarious liability.
- There was no indication that any of the appellants attempted to back out or dissociate themselves from the criminal act after the first shot was fired.
- The courts below were correct in their assessment, and the criminal appeals have been dismissed as a result.
Case Title: RISHIRAJ@ TUTUL MUKHARJEE Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2022 INSC 609)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001301-001301 / 2019
