Injured Eyewitness Testimony and Medical Corroboration Establish Culpability for Armed Unlawful Assembly under Section 149 IPC

On February 7, 1977, victims Nripen Das, Amar Chandra Das (PW-1), and Subal Das (PW-8) were ploughing a disputed plot of land in Chikliguri.

Although previously owned by the appellants, the land had vested in the government and was settled with the deceased, Nripen Das; Amin reports confirmed the victims’ possession since 1969.

The appellants, forming an unlawful assembly armed with bows, arrows, and a ‘ram dao’, attacked the victims. PW-1 and PW-8 sustained bleeding injuries from arrows, and PW-9 was forcibly confined and tortured.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants on July 31, 1986, under Sections 148 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to concurrent terms of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment.

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-production of weapons, lack of specific overt acts by some, and parity with acquitted co-accused.

1. Whether the prosecution established the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause hurt using deadly weapons under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC.

2. Whether the ocular testimony of injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 324 of the IPC despite the non-production of some weapons at trial.

The Court applied Section 148 of the IPC regarding rioting armed with deadly weapons and Section 149 of the IPC, which establishes vicarious liability for every member of an unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of a common object.

The Court also applied Section 324 of the IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

The legal principle that the testimony of an injured witness possesses a high degree of reliability as their presence at the scene is established by their injuries.

The court referred to Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the probation of offenders, though it ultimately focused on the passage of time for sentencing mitigation.

The Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the formation of an unlawful assembly through the consistent testimonies of PW-1, PW-8 (injured witnesses), and PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 (independent eye-witnesses), who all observed the appellants arriving armed and acting in concert.

The "common object" was inferred from the collective nature of the assault on the victims to assert dominance over the land.

Regarding the medical evidence, PW-13 (Doctor) confirmed penetrating arrow wounds on PW-1 and incised wounds on PW-8, which were compatible with the weapons described.

The Court dismissed the defense's argument regarding lack of specific roles, noting that under Section 149, once a common object is proved, every member is liable for the acts of the assembly.

The settling of the land in the victims' favor since 1969 negated any claim of private defense of property by the appellants.

The extraction of an arrow from PW-1 and its subsequent seizure (Mat. Exbt. II) provided sufficient physical corroboration regardless of the non-production of other specific "daos".

The Court dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence for the surviving appellants to the period of incarceration already undergone, noting the incident occurred in 1977 and 40 years had elapsed.

The appeal abated against Appellant No. 1 (Nripen Das) due to his death.

Trial Court records were ordered to be returned for necessary action.