Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. P.C. Agarwal (PW5). He had noted as follows: …. "A stitched wound 1 Y. long on the right forearm, incised wound on the medial aspect of right wrist. abraded contusion 1/4" x 1/4" on the dorsal aspect of right middle and ring fingers, contusion 12" x 4" on the outer aspect of right arm and top of shoulder, contusion 2 1/2" x 2" on the right back in the lower 3rd, 3 contusions 1 /2" x 1 /4", 314" x 1/4", 1 Y. • x Y. • on the right knee and the 3rd of front of right leg, stitched wound 3/4" on the upper lower third of front of right leg, abraded contusion 1" x 3/4" on the middle of left leg, abraded contusion 1 Y. " x 1/2" on the front side of the left arm, abraded contusion 2" x 1 3/4" on the outer aspect of left arm, contusion 6" x 2" on the front and left side of chest, contusion 3" x 1 1/2" on the left upper thigh SURENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. [R.M. LODHA, J.] and contusion 3 1 /2" x 1 1 /2" on the outer aspect of left middle leg."
12. In Sarwan Singh1, this Court observed that when the injuries caused were cumulatively sufficient to cause death, it was necessary for the Court before holding each of the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to find that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew it to be likely that an offence under Section 302 IPC would be committed in furtherance of the common object. The Court then examined the above question in light of the injuries sustained by the deceased. In paragraph 8 of the report, the injuries have been noticed. The Court then noticed the circumstances of the case particularly that an unexpected quarrel took place between the members of the same family over a dispute as to water rights. Consequently, the Court held that the common object of the assembly was not to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court held that the common object of the assembly, in the circumstances, could only be said to cause injuries which were likely to cause death. In Sarwan Singh1, accordingly, it was held that the offence would be under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
13. Sarwan Singh' has no application to the facts of the present case for more than one reason. In the first place, the motive for the crime in the present case has been established. There was criminal litigation pending between the deceased Ramchandra Singh and the accused Surendra, Narendra and Yogesh. The other accused Anil Kumar is the bother-in-law of these three accused. The enmity between the deceased and the accused party stands proved. Secondly, all the five accused were armed with deadly weapons. Accused Surendra and Narendra were armed with burri and knife respectively and other three accused were armed with lathis. Accused Surendra, at the time of incident, exhorted the other accused, "Kill him. He is the bone of contention". The attack by the accused party on the victim has been established to be pre-planned and pre- A meditated. Thirdly; the evidence of Dr. P.C. Agarwal (PWS) who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased would show that the deceased had fractured ribs – left 9th, 10th and right 10th and both the lungs of the deceased were lacerated and were found ruptured. The legal position is well established B that inference of common object has to be drawn from various factors such as the weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by them and the result. We are satisfied that the prosecution, from the entirety of the evidence, has been able to establish that all c the members of the unlawful assembly acted in furtherance of the common object to cause the death of Ramchandra Singh.
14. In, what we have indicated above, the decision of this Court in the case of Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe2 also has no application to the facts of the present case.
15. The case of the accused Anil Kumar is not at all distinct from the case of the other accused as has been sought to be canvassed by Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel.
16. The High Court, while dealing with the question of E nature of offence, observed: 'The last point argued by learned counsel for the appellants was that this was not the case under Section 302 IPC but circumstances and nature of injuries show that this was a case under Section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Cod.e. But we see no force in this contention because there was enmity between the parties and the attack was well planned. This was not a case of sudden provocation. The injury report Ex. Ka-2 shows that deceased was brutally and badly assaulted by the accused persons and cumulative effect of injuries was the cause of death."
17. We find no error in consideration of the matter by the High Court.
18. Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. R.P. Special Leave Petitions dismissed.