Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Nitya Nand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgement: 4th September 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Appeal Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2014
Acts and Sections Involved: Sections 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Cited Judgements:
Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (2012) 11 SCC 237
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) 7 SCC 743
Yunis alias Kariya vs. State of M.P. (2003) 1 SCC 425
Introduction
The case of Nitya Nand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. revolves around a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence handed down by the Allahabad High Court. The appellant, Nitya Nand, was convicted along with others under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, for the murder of Satya Narain.
Background
The conviction stems from an incident that occurred on 8th September 1992, when the appellant, along with his co-accused, assaulted the deceased Satya Narain near the Ganga Ghat in Etah. The motive behind the murder was rooted in family disputes over property. The victim’s brother, Laxmi Narain, had willed his property to the sons of the deceased, which led to deep resentment between the families, culminating in the brutal attack.
The First Information Report (FIR) was promptly lodged by the victim’s son, Sarwan Kumar, who was an eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, particularly Sarwan Kumar and another witness, Bhola Shankar, as well as the medical evidence provided by the post-mortem report.
Key Issues Raised in the Appeal
Lack of Firearm Injuries and Non-Recovery of Pistol: The appellant’s counsel argued that while it was alleged that Nitya Nand had fired a shot from a country-made pistol to scare off potential rescuers, there were no firearm injuries found on the deceased or any other individuals at the crime scene. Additionally, the country-made pistol or any empty cartridge was not recovered, casting doubt on the appellant's involvement.
Non-Examination of Key Witnesses: The defence further submitted that the failure to examine crucial witnesses, such as Laxmi Narain (who had been murdered in a separate incident in 1993) and the scribe of the FIR, Kuldeep Kumar Tiwari, weakened the prosecution’s case.
Role of the Appellant: The appellant’s primary contention was that he did not directly participate in the murder but merely fired a shot into the air. As such, he argued that his conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC was unjustified, as his involvement was limited to assisting the other accused in their escape.
The Court's Reasoning and Judgement
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its analysis, upheld the findings of both the trial court and the Allahabad High Court, dismissing the appeal and affirming the appellant's conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.
Membership in an Unlawful Assembly
A key aspect of the Court’s reasoning was the application of Section 149 IPC, which imputes liability on all members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in furtherance of the common object of that assembly. The Court noted that even though the appellant did not directly assault the deceased, his presence at the crime scene and his act of firing in the air to facilitate the escape of the co-accused indicated his involvement in the unlawful assembly. As per the Court:
"The relevant question to be examined by the court is whether the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took active part in the crime or not."
This principle was drawn from Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka (2012) 11 SCC 237, where it was held that Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability for all members of an unlawful assembly.
Common Object of the Assembly
The prosecution successfully proved that the common object of the assembly was to murder Satya Narain. The sequence of events, as described by the eyewitnesses, indicated that the appellant and the co-accused had pre-planned the assault, as they were all armed with weapons and acted in concert. The Hon'ble Court quoted the well-established position that:
"Section 149 IPC does not create a separate offence but only declares vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts done in common object."
The Court referred to Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) 7 SCC 743 to emphasize that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold all members liable for the offence committed in pursuit of the common object.
Eyewitness Testimony and Medical Evidence
The testimonies of PW-1 (Sarwan Kumar) and PW-2 (Bhola Shankar) were deemed credible and consistent with the medical evidence. Both witnesses were present at the scene and provided detailed accounts of the assault. Their statements were corroborated by the post-mortem report, which revealed multiple incised wounds and stab injuries consistent with the weapons used by the accused.
"The ocular evidence supported by the medical evidence clearly establish that it was a case of murder of the deceased by the other accused persons under Section 302 IPC."
The defence's attempt to discredit the witnesses on the grounds of personal enmity was rejected, as the Court found no material inconsistencies in their testimonies.
The Doctrine of Constructive Liability
The crux of the judgement lies in the doctrine of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC. The Court reaffirmed that an individual need not physically participate in the fatal assault to be held guilty. The appellant’s act of firing the pistol, though not directly causing harm, was seen as a contribution to the common object of the assembly, which was the murder of Satya Narain. As stated in Yunis alias Kariya vs. State of M.P. (2003) 1 SCC 425:
"No overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 IPC; the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC was justified, as he was an active member of the unlawful assembly with a clear common object to kill the deceased. Despite certain gaps in the prosecution’s case, such as the non-recovery of the firearm, the weight of the evidence, particularly the eyewitness accounts and the application of Section 149 IPC, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
The appeal was thus dismissed, with the Hon'ble Justices affirming that:
"We see no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed."
Comments