Penal Code, 1860:

Section 300, Exception 4-Benefit of Exception-Entitlement of-Absence of existence of common object-Accused person is proved to have committed culpable homicide without pre-meditation in a certain fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel-Acts not cruel and of unusual manner-Held, in such a situation accused entitled to benefit under Exception 4 of Section 300.

Sections 302 and 149--Existence of common object of unlawful assembly amongst accused persons-Findings of High Court regarding sharing of common object-Evidence of witnesses-No enmity between parties-Time gap between quarrel and fight was few minutes-Trial Court on the basis of evidence proved by the prosecution that accused persons shared a common object convicted the accused persons-However, High Court held that all persons did not share common object-On appeal, held prosecution could not specifically refer to any of the objects for which accused alleged to have formed unlawful assembly-Hence, findings of High Court cannot be held to be totally improbable.

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Special leave jurisdiction- Review of evidence for third time-Scope of-Held, unless there is some serious infirmity or grave failure of justice, Supreme Court normally refrains from re- appreciating the matter.

According to the prosecution case, there was an altercation between the appellant and son of one 'L' over a trivial issue. 'L' intervened and gave slaps to the appellant. Thereafter appellant went away declaring that he would teach a lesson. After some time appellant along with other accused person came at the spot armed with weapons and fight ensued. Appellant gave blows with bhala on the chest of 'L' and other accused persons accompanied him. In the fight the son, wife, father and brother of 'L' also received injuries and 'L' died. FIR was lodged and after investigation appellant and the accused persons were committed for trial. Appellant contended that he along with two other accused persons caused injuries to the complainant party and others in self defence. However, remaining accused persons denied their participation and stated that they had been falsely implicated. Trial Court on being satisfied that the occurrence had taken place in which all the accused participated, convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. However, High Court held that all the accused persons did not share common object and thus were not liable to be convicted for commission of the main offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Hence these cross appeals.

Appellant contended that as the occurrence had taken place without pre-meditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Code. It is further contended that the finding of the High Court that the appellant has acted in a cruel or unusual manner cannot be sustained after it is held that the accused did not have common object because the injuries inflicted on the deceased were neither cruel nor of unusual manner.

Appellant-state contended that the High Court was not justified in disturbing the finding of the trial court that all the accused shared the common object and holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the sharing of the common object of all the accused persons. It was suggested that the manner in which the accused came to the spot armed with deadly weapons and the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the persons of the deceased and other injured persons demonstrated in unequivocal terms that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the offences for which they were charged.