Supreme Court of India
CHAITU GOWALA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF ASSAM on 7 September 2022
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
ACHAITU GOWALA AND ANOTHER
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2020)
BSEPTEMBER 07, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 149 – Appellants alongwith70 other accused persons were accused of murdering the ManagingDirector of a company in which they were working – ProsecutionCexamined three eye witnesses who identified the appellants – TrialCourt convicted appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment– High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held : Onconsidering the disposition of the eye witnesses nothing isforthcoming that appellants caused any injury to the deceased andDparticipated in any manner in commission of the offence – Therewere some disputes with respect to wages and appellants were presentat the incident site as office bearers of the labour union – It hascome on record that appellant-Chaitu Gowda told something to thelabourers in their own language following which the labourersbecame very agitated – But nothing on record what was uttered byEthe accused – In absence of any concrete evidence, the appellantscannot be convicted u/s.302 IPC with the aid of s.149 IPC –Impugned judgment of High Court and trial court quashed and setaside.
Allowing the appeal, the CourtF
HELD: On considering deposition of the eye witnesses,PW3, PW4 and PW6, nothing is forthcoming that the appellantscaused any injury on the deceased and/or participated in anymanner in commission of the offences for which they areconvicted. If the entire evidence and the deposition of the eyeGwitnesses are scanned, it appears that in fact the appellants werepresent there as office bearers of the Union. There were somedisputes with respect to wages. Even as per the deposition ofPW3, on being called, the appellants entered into the office roombut soon both of them came out and told the assembled labourers H
that the Managing Director would distribute their dues and askedthem to go to the place where dues were to be distributed. Despitethe same, the labourers protested that they would not acceptanything other than the full dues and they started shouting. Theother labourers – co-accused snatched the carbine of the PSOand to that the deceased – Managing Director asked the appellant– Chaitu Gowala as to why the weapon of PW3 was snatched, hebeing a public servant. It has come on record that on this, theappellant – Chaitu Gowala told something to the labourers in theirown language following which the labourers became very agitated.Nothing is on record what was uttered by the accused – ChaituGowala. Therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence that theappellants attacked and/or caused any injury to the deceased and/or even the PSO and in absence of any evidence what was utteredby the appellants – accused in their own language and in absenceof any evidence that the appellants instigated the labourers –others co-accused, the appellants cannot be convicted for theoffence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.The conviction of the appellants, for the offences for which theyare convicted is unsustainable. [Para 5][193-B-H; 194-A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018 of the High Courtof Gauhati at Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2013.
Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for theAppellants.
Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Ragini Pandey, Debojit Borkakati, Advs. forthe Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the GauhatiHigh Court in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2013, by which the High Courthas dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the conviction of theappellants herein – Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari - original accused ABC
D
E
F
G
H
ANos. 2 & 1 respectively, convicting them for the offences under Sections302/392/148/323/149 IPC and sentencing them to undergo lifeimprisonment, original accused Nos. 2 & 1– Chaitu Gowala and AjayAhari respectively have preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellants herein along with other co-accused (70 inBnumbers) were tried for the offences under Sections 302/392/148/323/149 IPC for having committed the murder of one Rupak Kumar Gogoi,Managing Director of the Company in which the accused persons wereworking. At the relevant time, the appellants herein were the Presidentand Secretary of the Union. The prosecution examined PW3, PW4 andPW6 as eye witnesses who had identified the appellants and othersCaccused. On conclusion of the trial and on appreciation of evidence, thetrial Court acquitted 57 accused, however, convicted 13 accused includingthe appellants herein for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them tolife imprisonment and also awarded different sentences for otheroffences. That the conviction of the thirteen accused including the Dappellants herein came to be confirmed by the High Court, by theimpugned judgment and order.
2.1 In all, six accused filed the present appeal/special leave petition.However, by order dated 25.03.2019, the special leave petition quapetitioner Nos. 3 to 6 came to be dismissed. Therefore, the presentEappeal is for the remaining accused, namely, Chaitu Gowala and AjayAhari – original accused Nos. 2 & 1 respectively.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused hasvehemently submitted that as such there is no evidence against theappellants that they caused any injury to the deceased and/or participatedFin commission of the offences for which they are convicted. It is submittedthat in fact the appellants were there as office bearers of the Union andwhen the talks were going on, the labourers gathered and attacked. It issubmitted that in fact the appellants tried to control the situation, however,the mob attacked the deceased – Managing Director who succumbedto the injuries. It is submitted that there is no evidence that the appellantsGherein even instigated the mob. It is submitted that even considering thedeposition of the eye witnesses as it is, it cannot be said that the appellantshave committed any offence for which they are convicted, moreparticularly Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellants has taken us to the deposition of the relevant witnesses.
H
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theState while opposing the present appeal has submitted that it has comeon record from the deposition of eye witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW6that the appellants who were the office bearers came out when the mobcame and then they spoke something in their own language. It is submittedthat therefore the appellants are rightly convicted with the aid of Section149 IPC. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has taken usto the deposition of PW3, PW4 and PW6.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length. We have gone through in detail the judgmentand order passed by the trial Court as well as the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court. We have also considered in detailthe deposition of the relevant witnesses, more particularly PW3, PW4and PW6, who were the eye witnesses. On considering deposition ofthe eye witnesses, nothing is forthcoming that the appellants caused anyinjury on the deceased and/or participated in any manner in commissionof the offences for which they are convicted. If the entire evidence andthe deposition of the eye witnesses are scanned, it appears that in factthe appellants were present there as office bearers of the Union. Therewere some disputes with respect to wages. Even as per the depositionof PW3, on being called, the appellants entered into the office room butsoon both of them came out and told the assembled labourers that theManaging Director would distribute their dues and asked them to go tothe place where dues were to be distributed. Despite the same, thelabourers protested that they would not accept anything other than thefull dues and they started shouting. The other labourers – co-accusedsnatched the carbine of the PSO and to that the deceased – ManagingDirector asked the appellant – Chaitu Gowala as to why the weapon ofPW3 was snatched, he being a public servant. It has come on recordthat on this, the appellant – Chaitu Gowala told something to the labourersin their own language following which the labourers became very agitated.Nothing is on record what was uttered by the accused – Chaitu Gowala.
Therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence that the appellantsattacked and/or caused any injury to the deceased and/or even the PSOand in absence of any evidence what was uttered by the appellants –accused in their own language and in absence of any evidence that theappellants instigated the labourers – others co-accused, we are of theopinion that the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence underSection 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. We are of the firm A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aview that the conviction of the appellants, namely, Chaitu Gowala andAjay Ahari for the offences for which they are convicted is unsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court qua theappellants herein and that of the trial Court convicting the appellantsBChaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari for the offences under Sections 302/392/148/323/149 IPC are hereby quashed and set aside. However, theimpugned judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court convictingthe other accused are already confirmed. The appellants herein – ChaituGowala son of Karma Gowalla and Ajay Ahari son of Late Samro Ahari,original accused Nos. 2 & 1 respectively are hereby acquitted for theCoffences for which they were tried and convicted. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
7. The instant appeal is allowed accordingly.
DBibhuti Bhushan Bose
(Assisted by : Shubhanshu Das, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
E
F
G
H