Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
2. Contusion 3 cm X 1 cm over mid of forehead. Clotted blood present.
3. Contusion 4 cm X 3 cm over right temporal region. Clotted blood present.
4. Two contusions 5 cm X 0.5 cm parallel to each other, 1 cm apart over right lateral side of neck. Clotted blood present.
5. Two contusions 11 cm X 0.5 cm parallel and 1 cm apart over lateral side of right arm. Clotted blood present.
6. Contusion 4 cm X 4 cm over trip of right shoulder. Clotted blood present.
7. Contusion 10 cm X 5 cm over lateral aspect of right forearm. Clotted blood present.
8. Contusion around the right wrist with a groove.
9. Contusion 16 cm X 9 cm over lateral side of left arm. Clotted blood present.
10. Contusion 5 cm X 1.5 cm over left seapular. Clotted blood present.
11. Contusion 4 cm X 1.5 cm, 3 cm below the injury no.10. Clotted blood present.
12. Contusion 8 cm X 2 cm over right scapula. Clotted blood present. KISHAN RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 417 [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
13. Contusion 8 cm X 1.5 cm over left side of back, 4 cm below the injury no.11. Clotted blood present.
14. Contusion 2 cm X 0.5 cm over mid of back. Clotted blood present.
15. Contusion all over lateral aspect of thigh. Clotted blood present.
16. Contusion 18 cm X 1 O cm over back and medical aspect of left thigh. Clotted blood present. c
17. Contusion 6 cm X 1 cm over left knee joint. Clotted blood present.
18. Contusion 5 cm X 6 cm anterior side of left leg. Clotted blood present.
19. Contusion 7 cm X 0.5 cm over back of left elbow. Clotted blood present.
20. Contusion 3 cm X 2 cm over post aspect of left forearm. Clotted blood present.
21. Contusion 4 cm X 2 cm over post aspect of left arm. Clotted blood present.
22. Contusion alongwith groove around the left wrist. Clotted blood present.
23. Two contusions 10 cm X 0.5 cm and 1 cm apart over right side of abdomen. Clotted blood present.
24. Contusion all over right glutial region. Clotted blood present.
25. Contusion all over posterior and medical aspect of right thigh. Clotted blood present.
26. Two contusions 8 cm X 0.5 cm parallel and 1 cm apart and 6 cm above the right knee joint. Clotted blood present.
27. Contusion 6 cm X 0.5 cm over left ankle joint. Clotted blood present." Dr. S.C. Pant has opined that there was haematoma under B injuries no.1 and 3 and the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries no.1 and 3. PW-1 and PW- 2 have stated that all the five accused persons were assaulting the deceased by their respective lathis and dandas and the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with rope. At the time C of inquest on the morning of 04.07.1986, PW-5 also took into possession the rope from the spot. Considering the fact that all the five accused persons assaulted the deceased when the hands and legs of the deceased were tied and they caused as many as 27 injuries on different parts of the body of the D deceased, there is no escape from the conclusion that the common object of the assembly was to commit the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC, and all the five members of the unlawful assembly were liable for the offence under Section 302, IPC, as provided in Section 149, IPC. Hence, the E contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC, is not correct. 15. In Bhudeo Manda/ & Ors. v. State of Bihar (supra}, cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court had F held that before convicting the accused with the aid of Section 149, IPC, the Court must give a clear finding regarding the nature of the common object which was unlawful. In the aforesaid case of Bhudeo Manda/ & Ors. v. State of Bihar (supra}, this Court had found that Bhudeo Mandal had given a G blow to Mainu Mandal, but so far as the other appellants are concerned they were armed with lathis but they did not cause any injuries either to the witnesses or to the deceased and on these facts, this Court held that they did not have the common object of committing the offence under Section 326, IPC, and H hence could not be roped in with the aid of Section 149, IPC. KISHAN RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 419 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.] 16. In Sarman & Ors. v. State of M.P. (supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court found that all the appellants were armed with lathis and the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, noticed 17 injuries on the body of the deceased and only injury no.15 had resulted in the depressed fracture of parietal bone, which according to the doctor, was individually sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The Court further found that the prosecution case in general was that all of them were found with lathis and nobody had stated which of them caused injury no.15 which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased and the c Court held that if anyone of the appellants had acted on his own exceeding the common object, it would be his individual act and in these circumstances, it was difficult to award punishment under Sections 302/149, IPC. 17. In Thakore Dolji Vanvirji & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Court found that ac~used no.1 had dealt a fatal blow on the head of the deceased with a sword and only omnibus allegations had been made against rest of the accused persons and the Court held that accused no.1 had to be convicted under Section 302, IPC, but it was not safe to convict every one of them for the offence of murder by applying Section 149, IPC. 18. In Rajaram v. State of M.P. (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Court found that by way of an omnibus allegation the witnesses deposed that all the nineteen accused persons inflicted injuries, but the medical evidence did not support such omnibus allegations.
The Court held that it was highly unsafe to confirm the conviction of the appellants under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC, particularly when the medical evidence had not fully supported the allegation made by the two witnesses particularly when only one injury was found to be fatal which was a multiple contusion on the back. 19. The facts of the present case, however, are different from the aforesaid cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. The oral testimony of the eye-witnesses, the recovery of rope from the spot and the medical evidence in this case establish beyond reasonable doubt that the five accused B persons tred the hands and legs of the deceased and gave him jointly 27 injuries with lathis and dandas. Hence, the common object of the assembly was to commit the offence under Section 302, IPC. The trial court and the High Court, therefore, rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence of murder under Section c 302 read with Section 149, IPC. 20. We do not, therefore, find any merit in this appeal and we accordingly dismiss the same. B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.