1

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW-I

TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS: Muthuramalingam & Ors vs State Rep.By

Insp.Of Police

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. DIVYA SALIM KHUSHI SHARMA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 2018BALLB90
 2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project titled – Case Analysis: Muthuramalingam & Ors vs State
Rep.By Insp.Of Police, has been prepared and submitted by Khushi Sharma, who is pursuing
her B.A.L.L.B (Hons) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment Criminal Law-
I Course. It is also certified that this is project work has not been submitted to any other
University, nor published in any journal.
Date: 4h December 2018 Signature of student:

Signature of Project Supervisor:

 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would
like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. DIVYA SALIM for guiding
me throughout the development of this project into a coherent whole by providing helpful
insights and sharing his brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of Gyan
Mandir, National Law Institute University for their unreserved assistance throughout the
making this project. I am deeply indebted to my parent, seniors and friends for all the moral
support and encouragement.

Khushi sharma
 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE .......................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

MATERIAL FACTS.................................................................................................................. 6

ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 7

APPELLANTS....................................................................................................................... 7

RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................... 7

INTERPRETATION OF LAW ................................................................................................. 9

SECTION 149 OF IPC .......................................................................................................... 9

INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................................. 9

JUDGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 10

ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 10

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 11

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 11
 5

INTRODUCTION

MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS VS STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE

CITATION: (2017)1 SCC 477

BENCH: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY

APPELLANTS:
Muthuramalingam & Ors.

RESPONDENT:
State Rep. by Insp. of Police

ACTS/RULES/ORDERS:

Sections 34, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the above case by way of criminal appeal. The case involved
application of sections 34,148,149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Apex court
upheld certain findings of the High Court and overturned some parts as well, which will be
discussed later in the project.
 6

MATERIAL FACTS

1. The Appellants/Accused, the deceased and few witnesses were related to each other.
As per prosecution case, Accused persons assembled unlawfully with deadly weapons
and with the common intention to commit murder, they chased the family members of
deceased. They were coming back to their village after attending the cremation of
person, who died in another case, and the Appellants and few others were accused in
that case.
2. The accused persons, in a gruesome attack on the family members, murdered 8 persons,
including one who succumbed to the injuries later in the Hospital. The charge-sheet
was filed against the Accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 506(ii), 307
and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 to A6 and A8 to A20 each. A18 died
during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. The Additional Sessions
Judge found the occurrence to be a brutal and gruesome attack by the Accused persons
forming unlawful assembly and causing death of eight persons, including a 1 1/2 years
child, with a common objective of eliminating everyone in the deceased's family. The
Additional Sessions Judge held all the Accused persons guilty.
4. The High Court found that there was no evidence to warrant conviction of A5, A13,
A19 and A20. However, the High Court found all other Accused guilty of eight barbaric
murders and attempt to murder while forming unlawful assembly.
5. The High Court modified the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court. The
High Court confirmed the direction given by the Trial Court that the sentences of life
imprisonment imposed for each count and sentence of imprisonment for 10 years, shall
run consecutively. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the
Appellants approached the present Court.
 7

ISSUES

“Whether High Court in was justified in modifying conviction from that under Section 302
read with Section 34 to that of Section 302 read with Section 149?”

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

APPELLANTS
1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of the
deposition of PW12, all the eye-witnesses (PW1-PW4) cannot be believed as it casts
suspicion on the prosecution version as it is admitted by PW12 in his cross-examination
that he saw only three bodies strewed and no injured person at the place of occurrence.
2. He further submitted that the investigation has not been done properly in the present
case, and therefore, the accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
3. It was further submitted that there is substantive difference between Section 34 and
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 would
result in prejudice to the accused and therefore the same may not be permitted.
4. Further, no satisfactory explanation to such substitution was given. He further
submitted that there was delay in the lodging of FIR which creates doubts.
RESPONDENTS
1. On behalf of the respondent the counsel submitted that all the accused were armed with
sharp and deadly weapons and were hiding in the bushes. When the deceased came near
the place of occurrence, Appellants attacked them shouting slogans that "kill them",
"hack them" and thus their act itself substantiates the commission of crime within the
meaning of Section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. It was further submitted that averments made by the Appellants in the present case are
not sustainable as eye-witnesses have vividly spoken about the presence and modus-
operandi of the offence committed showing their motive, which are also essential
ingredients to confirm conviction Under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
 8

3. Since PW-12 is not the eye-witness of the occurrence, he cannot state any substantive
part of the offence and the manner in which the offence would have been committed.
4. It was lastly submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that albeit there was
agitated atmosphere at the village, complaint was given the same day at 05:30 pm and
thus there was no delay in lodging the FIR.
 9

INTERPRETATION OF LAW

SECTION 149 OF IPC

The present case involves the application of Section 149 of IPC.
“149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit-ted in prosecution of
common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly
knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time
of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

INTERPRETATION
Section 149 prescribes for vicarious or constructive criminal liability for all members of an
unlawful assembly where an offence is committed by any member of such an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. It would thus be
noticed that one of the essential ingredients of Section 149 is that the offence must have been
committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, and Section 141 makes it clear that it is
only where five or more persons constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born,
provided, of course; the other requirements of the said Section as to the common object of the
persons composing that assembly are satisfied. In other words, it is an essential condition of an
unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more. A clear distinction is made out
between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action in
concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a pre-arranged plan implying a prior meeting
of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds
or pre-concert. Though there is substantial difference between the two sections, they also to
some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the
charge Under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34.
 10

JUDGEMENT

The court Held, while disposing off the appeal held:

(i) Motive was seen in the collective testimony of eye-witnesses when Accused came out from
the bushes shouting kill them, hack them, fire them, as also mentioned in the complaint. A
child was also mercilessly attacked in the incident with a spear on his chest. Accused No. 7
snatched away the child from her mother and killed her too with velstick. The prosecution case
was well established by the testimonies of eye-witnesses and corroborated by witness, wherein
factum of unlawful assembly was proved.
(ii) The Accused-Appellants did cause the death of eight persons in a barbaric and brutal
manner wherein merciless killing of a child of only 1 1/2 years is also involved. Therefore, the
Accused in the present case did not deserve any sympathy. Hence, all the criminal appeals filed
by the Appellants were sans merit and were liable to be dismissed. The judgment passed by the
High Court was upheld as far as awarding of sentences was concerned. However, the sentences
shall run in conformity with the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the present
Court. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court was modified to that extent.

ANALYSIS

The court modified the conviction on the ground that the essential condition for an offence to
fall under Section 34 of IPC is that there must be a common intention to commit the crime
actually committed. The common intention is anterior in time to the commission of the crime.
Common intention postulates a pre-arranged plan. The present matter does not appear to fulfil
this very essential of Section 34 of IPC. However, the present matter will fall under Section
149 of IPC as the common motive which is an essential ingredient of Section 149 is seen to be
met in the collective testimony of eye-witnesses PW1-PW3 when accused came out from the
bushes shouting "kill them", "hack them", "fire them", as also mentioned in the complaint.
An overt act is not always an inflexible requirement of Rule of law to establish culpability of
a member of an unlawful assembly. The crucial question is whether the assembly entertained
a common unlawful object and whether the accused was one of the members of such an
assembly by intentionally joining it or by continuing in it being aware of the facts which
rendered the assembly unlawful. Without unlawful object no assembly becomes an unlawful
 11

assembly. Therefore it can be established that there was a common objective and not common
intention in the present matter and therefore the offence under Section 302 will be read with
Section 149 of IPC.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion the court was correct in in modifying conviction from that under Section 302
read with Section 34 to that of Section 302 read with Section 149 as the essential ingredient of
Section 34 of IPC are not met in the present matter. Whereas there exists common objective
on the part of the accused, for the conviction to be read with Section 149 of IPC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS-

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, 20th Edition, Lexis Nexis
2. Universal Publications, Criminal Law Manual.

INTERNET SOURCES-

• google.co.in
• manupatra.com
• http://criminallawyersindia.wordpress.com
• http://lex-warrier
• www.indiankanoon.com