01Facts
The appellants were convicted following an incident on 8 April 1977 arising from a land and water-dispute. The prosecution alleged that the male accused, armed with a spear and lathis, assaulted Ram Sahodar; when his son Kuldeep intervened, Lal Behari inflicted a fatal spear wound and Hari Narain struck him with a lathi. The female accused were alleged to have thrown brickbats.
¶ 2–3The trial court convicted the surviving appellants Ram Shiromani and Chandra Bhawan under Sections 302/149, 324/149, 323 and 147 IPC, and Gyana Devi under Section 323 IPC. The appeals of several other appellants abated following their deaths; the appeal remained pending for these three appellants.
¶ 12–13The surviving appellants challenged, among other matters, their liability for Kuldeep’s death; Ram Shiromani also claimed juvenility on the date of the offence.
¶ 14–18, 43–4702Issues
i.1. Whether Ram Shiromani and Chandra Bhawan were liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for Kuldeep’s death, although the fatal assault was attributed to Lal Behari and the lathi blow to Hari Narain?
¶ 25–29, 36–40ii.2. Whether the evidence established the surviving appellants’ liability for the other offences, and Gyana Devi’s liability under Section 323 IPC?
¶ 41–42iii.3. Whether Ram Shiromani was a juvenile when the offence occurred and, if so, what order should follow as to his sentence?
¶ 43–6403Law Applied
Section 149 IPC imposes constructive liability only where an offence is committed in prosecution of the unlawful assembly’s common object, or is one the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object; mere membership or presence does not, by itself, establish liability for every offence committed during an incident (Rajendra Santaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 257; Daya Kishan v. State of Haryana, (2010) 5 SCC 81; Jawed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164).
¶ 27–29The common object must be assessed from the assembly’s conduct, weapons and surrounding circumstances, and may change during an incident (Zainul v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2152).
¶ 39Under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, a claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage; where a person is found to have been a juvenile, the conviction may be maintained while the sentence is set aside and the matter referred to the competent Board for an appropriate order. The Court also applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 to age determination and relied on Mumtaz v. State of U.P., (2016) 11 SCC 786, Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 193, and Karan @ Fatiya v. State of M.P., (2023) 5 SCC 504.
¶ 45–50, 58–63Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313Section 374
Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions
Section 141Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 302Section 323Section 324Section 325Section 326Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 9Section 14Section 25Section 36Section 94
04Reasoning
The Court distinguished the assault on Ram Sahodar from the later assault on Kuldeep. It found that the surviving male appellants participated in the first incident, in which the assembly acted with the common object of causing hurt to Ram Sahodar.
¶ 35–42However, the evidence attributed the fatal spear blow and the lathi blow on Kuldeep to Lal Behari and Hari Narain, respectively; the Court found that killing Kuldeep was not the common object of the surviving appellants and that they did not commit an overt act in the later incident. Their convictions under Section 302/149 IPC therefore could not stand, although the evidence supported their convictions for the other offences.
¶ 35–42The evidence that Gyana Devi caused simple hurt by throwing brickbats supported her Section 323 IPC conviction.
¶ 42The Board’s report and uncontroverted educational certificates established that Ram Shiromani was born on 25 April 1961 and was 15 years, 11 months and 13 days old on the offence date. The Court accordingly treated him as a juvenile for sentencing purposes, maintained the finding of guilt, and referred the question of appropriate punishment to the Juvenile Justice Board.
¶ 54–56, 6305Holding
The Court set aside Ram Shiromani’s and Chandra Bhawan’s convictions under Section 302/149 IPC, but upheld their convictions and sentences under Sections 324/149, 323 and 147 IPC.
¶ 41–42, 66–69It upheld Gyana Devi’s Section 323 IPC conviction and directed payment of the ₹200 fine within 15 days, failing which she would serve the default sentence.
¶ 41–42, 66–69For Ram Shiromani, the Court set aside the sentence and remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board to determine the appropriate punishment; he was directed to appear before the Board on 17 November 2026, which was to pass its order within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.
¶ 63–65Chandra Bhawan was directed to surrender and serve the remaining sentence, subject to adjustment for time already undergone.
¶ 67, 69The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
¶ 70Original Court PDF
Lal Behari And OthersvsThe State
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
