Case Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Suresh Dattu Bhojane & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra
Date: 08 July 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice Abhay S. Oka and Honorable Justice Pankaj Mithal
Acts and Sections: Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act
Cited Judgements: Yunis alias Kariya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 8th July 2024, addressed the criminal appeals filed by Suresh Dattu Bhojane and others against the judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The case centres around a group assault that resulted in the death of Mohan Mungase and injuries to Nandkumar Mungase and Maruti Nakate.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to 6th February 1999, when a group assault was carried out by the appellants and other accused at the residence of Mama Bhojane. The genesis of the conflict was rooted in the management of a country liquor shop previously managed by one of the accused, Dhondappa, and later entrusted to the deceased and his brother, Nandkumar Mungase. This change in management led to resentment among the accused, culminating in the violent incident.
Proceedings and Findings
Trial Court: The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine. The acquittal of accused Nos. 7 and 8 was noted, and no appeal was filed against their acquittal.
High Court: The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, affirming the findings of the Trial Court.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court clubbed the appeals of accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 and conducted a thorough examination of the evidence and testimonies.
Key Evidence and Testimonies
Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5): Described the events leading to the assault. Testified about the armed presence of the accused and their attack on his brother and himself. His statement remained consistent and unshaken under cross-examination.
Savita (PW-4): Corroborated the account of Nandkumar Mungase. Described the presence and actions of the accused during the incident. Her testimony was crucial in establishing the sequence of events and the involvement of the accused.
Constable Mahadeo (PW-9): Provided a detailed account of arriving at the scene and observing the aftermath of the assault. His observations supported the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5.
Legal Reasoning
The primary contention in the appeals was whether accused Nos. 5 and 6, who were not assigned specific roles or seen actively participating in the assault, could be convicted under Section 149 of the IPC. Section 149 holds all members of an unlawful assembly with a common object liable for the acts committed by any member in prosecution of that common object.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of the accused at the scene, their association with the armed group, and their participation in the unlawful assembly were sufficient grounds for conviction under Section 149. The Court noted:
"The presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly itself is sufficient for conviction."
This principle aligns with the cited judgement in Yunis alias Kariya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which establishes that membership in an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit a crime renders all members culpable.
Detailed Examination of the Appeals
Accused No. 5 & No. 6: The main argument in the appeals was the lack of specific roles or active participation by these accused. However, the Court found that their presence and the testimony of witnesses placed them at the scene, armed and part of the unlawful assembly.
"The assembly of all the accused persons in the house of Mama Bhojane with deadly weapons was apparently for the purposes of teaching a lesson to the deceased and his brother to settle the score arising from the entrustment of the country liquor shop."
The Court affirmed that even without specific actions, their involvement in the common object was evident.
Accused No. 3: For accused No. 3, the evidence was more direct. Multiple eyewitnesses described his active participation in the assault with a deadly weapon. His involvement was clear and undisputed, warranting no leniency.
Witness Testimonies
Savita (PW-4): Savita's testimony was pivotal. She provided a vivid account of the attack, describing how she followed her brother Nandkumar to the scene and witnessed the assault.
"She saw all the accused assaulting Mohan Mungase with swords. She and her brother Nandkumar Mungase kept on shouting not to assault him but Satish (A-3) kept on assaulting her brother with the sword, even Maruti Nakate (PW-7) who came and tried to intervene was not spared and was hit in the back."
Her testimony was consistent and aligned with other witnesses, strengthening the prosecution's case.
Constable Mahadeo (PW-9): The constable's testimony corroborated the events described by PW-4 and PW-5. His account of arriving at the scene, seeing the injured being taken out, and observing the accused fleeing confirmed the sequence of events.
"When the police constables reached there, Savita (PW-4) was fetching the injured Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5) and Maruti Nakate (PW-7) out of the house. The accused Nos. 2 and 3, armed with swords, were still following the injured but finding that the police have arrived, they closed the door from inside."
Legal Principles Affirmed
The judgement reaffirmed the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC. It emphasized that participation in an unlawful assembly with a common object suffices for conviction, even if specific roles are not delineated.
"The accused A-5 and A-6 have been charged under Section 149 IPC. Therefore, their presence with the other co-accused amounted to an unlawful assembly which is sufficient for conviction, even if they may have not actively participated in the commission of the crime."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgement in Suresh Dattu Bhojane & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra is a significant ruling that underscores the collective responsibility of individuals in an unlawful assembly. By affirming the convictions under Section 149 of the IPC, the Court highlighted the sufficiency of presence and common intent for establishing culpability.
This case serves as a crucial reference for legal professionals dealing with cases of collective violence. It reiterates the importance of corroborative testimonies and the legal doctrine of vicarious liability, ensuring that all participants in a common unlawful objective are held accountable.
Comments