State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Verma and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....8: [d.v. shylendra kumar, j] general rules of succession recognition of customary law - whether the customary practice prevalent in a community can prevail over the statutory provisions, particularly a customary practice of aliyasanthana can prevail over the provisions of section 8 of the hindu succession act 11956 and whether the parties by their conduct can start a custom afresh, though such custom was not prevalent earlier but sought to be followed by the act of the parties? held, if the customary law is already prevalent and the conduct of the parties is in consonance with the said customary law, that can be recognized on paper with law but if a customary law is not prevalent or was not in existence already, by act of parties at a given point of time, it cannot pleaded that.....order1. the state is in appeal against an order of acquittal. the accused persons were charged under sections 148 ipc, 332/149 ipc, 307/149 ipc, 323/149 ipc and 395/ 397 ipc and the learned sessions judge thought it prudent to sentence each of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and with a varying period from six months to three years of rigorous imprisonment of different counts. in appeal, the high court, however, passed an order of acquittal. the high court has been rather categorical in its criticism as regards the inclusion of the names of the accused persons in the fir, since the evidence on record unmistakably records that the first information report was written after the arrival of the police and the names have been recorded as per the list supplied by the inspector.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The State is in appeal against an order of acquittal. The accused persons were charged under Sections 148 IPC, 332/149 IPC, 307/149 IPC, 323/149 IPC and 395/ 397 IPC and the learned sessions judge thought it prudent to sentence each of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and with a varying period from six months to three years of rigorous imprisonment of different counts. In appeal, the High Court, However, passed an order of acquittal. The High Court has been rather categorical in its criticism as regards the inclusion of the names of the accused persons in the FIR, since the evidence on record unmistakably records that the First Information Report was written after the arrival of the police and the names have been recorded as per the list supplied by the inspector incharge.

2. The test identification parade also was not in accordance with the law. It is on this basis, however, that the High Court thought it prudent to acquit them. Incidentally, the High Court found and observed as under:

'There is however, no evidence to establish who actually snatched the watch. The accused Sri R.C. Verma raised alarm, hearing which the other accused are said to have assembled at the place of occurrence to save him and the incident of marpit suddenly took place. The story of bribe has already been held to be doubtful. Therefore, the arrest of the accused R.C. Verma was illegal. This being so that object of the other accused was not to assault or cause injury. Consequently the question of forming any unlawful assembly by them with a common object does not arise. None of the accused persons can be held constructively liable to invoke the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. vide Puran v. State of Rajasthan respondent reported in : 1976CriLJ674 , wherein it has been, inter alia observed as under:-

'In a case of sudden mutual fight there could be no question of invoking the aid of Section 149 for the purpose of imposing constructive liability on the accused.'

Reliance has also been placed upon State of U.P. v. Niyamat and Ors. : 1987CriLJ1881 wherein it has, inter alia, been observed that 'when the arrest itself was illegal, respondents who assembled to rescue him cannot be said to be members of unlawful assembly.'

3. It is on the basis of aforesaid, the High Court found it incumbent to pass an order of acquittal. We do not see any perversity therein warranting any interference against the view taken by the High Court as the same cannot be said to be not a plausible view.

4. In the result, these appeals fails and are dismissed.

5. Bail bonds shall stands discharged.