NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

In the partial fulfillment for the requirement of the project on the subject of CRIMINAL LAW I of B.A.,
L.L.B (Hons.), FifthTrimester.
Submitted on __thNovember 2019

AN ANALYSIS OF

AMMINI AND OTHERS …………Appellant

Vs.

VS STATE OF KERALA AIR 1998 SC 280 ………….Respondent

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER 521 OF 1987
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.T. NANAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAGANNADHA RAO

Submitted to:
Prof Dr Divya Salim{Faculty for Criminal Law I}
Submitted by :
Hrishikesh Jaiswal
(2018BALLB126)

Page 1 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................2

Certificate.........................................................................................................................................3

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................4

Table of Statutes..............................................................................................................................5

Table of Cases..................................................................................................................................6

Indian Cases.................................................................................................................................6

Chapter I: Introduction.....................................................................................................................8

Chapter II: Research Methodology................................................................................................10

Research Problem......................................................................................................................10

Research Questions....................................................................................................................10

Hypothesis.................................................................................................................................10

Chapterization............................................................................................................................11

Research Methodology..............................................................................................................11

Tools of Data Collection and Citation.......................................................................................11

CHAPTERIZATION I: A Brief Overview of the Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs Valerabhai

Deganbhai Vagh & Ors case..........................................................................................................12

CHAPTERIZATION II: Analysis of Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh

& Ors case.................................................................................................................................13

CHAPTERIZATION III: Critical Analysis of Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs Valerabhai

Deganbhai Vagh & Ors case.....................................................................................14

Rationale.......................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography…...........................................................................................................................16

Page 2 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the research paper titled “Case Analysis on “ AMMINI V STATE OF KERALA”,
has been prepared and submitted by Hrishikesh Jaiswal, who is currently pursuing his B.A.
LL.B. (Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal, in fulfillment of Criminal Law – I
Course. It is also certified that this is his original research report and this paper has not been
submitted to any other University, nor published in any journal.
Date: ___ November, 2018
Signature of the Student : ………………………….
Signature of the Research Supervisor : …………………………

Page 3 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would like to
acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Divya Salim for guiding me
throughout the development of this paper into a coherent whole by providing helpful insights and
sharing her brilliant expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of Gyan Mandir, NLIU, for
providing material for this study. I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all
the moral support and encouragement.
Hrishikesh Jaiswal 2018BALLB126

Page 4 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 TABLE OF STATUTES

1. Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2008.

2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Page 5 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 TABLE OF CASES

INDIAN CASES

 Showkath Ali And Ors. vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 10 August, 2007

 Ouseph And Anr. vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 1980

 Shri Shivayay Marihal S/O. Apayya ... vs State Of Goa Through Public ... on 2 April,
2008

 Shajimon.C. vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2010

Jomy George vs The State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2010

Page 6 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH PROBLEM

In this paper, the researcher has attempted to analyse the case of “Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs
Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh & Ors”. Initially, the researcher tries to understand the context of
the case by delving into the circumstances which led to the appellant filing an appeal in the
Supreme Court. In light of this backdrop, the judgement delivered by the SC is discussed and the
key takeaways stated.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What happened in the Ammini vs State Of Kerala?

2. What were the issues raised in this case?
Page 7 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
 3. How did the Supreme Court view the concerns raised in the case?
4. What were the pronouncements made by the Court and the directives issued for
implementation of the same?
5. What is the relevance of the case today and has there been sufficient adherence of the
guidelines framed by the Court?

CHAPTERIZATION

The first chapter of the paper primarily deals with the background of the case. In the subsequent
chapter, Ammini vs State Of Kerala case is discussed in detail and the wider and literal
interpretation by the Supreme Court has been mentioned. Lastly, the researcher has looked into
the critical analysis of the case.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A combination of analytical and descriptive approach has been adopted by the researcher. Case
laws, precedents, etc. have been consulted wherever necessary. It must be noted that only the
criminal law domain in India has been considered for this case.

TOOLS OF DATA COLLECTION AND CITATION

Books, articles, case laws, various legislations, criminal manual, etc. have been relied upon in
writing this paper. The citation are based on the NLIU Guide to Citation.

Page 8 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 MATERIAL FACTS

The following facts were relied upon by the court to reach the conclusion in the present case:
1. The appellants four in number are being accused of the murder of mother and her 2
children,they have being acquitted by the trial court but the decision by the high
court was different
2. Accused 1 had bad relationship with the husband of the deceased and thus she
planned to destroy her family
3. A1 had illicit relationships with A2 and A3 was their house helpers son
4. Several attempts were made to kill the deceased and its family such as resorting to
black magic and giving poisonous insecticide but all failed
5. The second attempt was successful when deceased and her children were forcibly
administered cyanide and even after resisting the four accused they were able to kill
them instantly

Page 9 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

6. The defence in the trial court was successful in proving their case and were able to
prove that the deceased had committed suicide
7. The State challenged the acquittal before the High Court. The High Court found that
most of the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the prosecution evidence
were grossly unreasonable and some of them were almost perverse. After re-
appreciating the evidence it came to a different conclusion as regards the guilt of the
accused.
8. The High Court accepted the evidence of Tomy (PW-2) and his elder brother Paul
(PW-15) and held that A-1 was on inimical terms with Tomy and his wife and that
she had sufficient motive to finish Tomy and his family members.
9. The Sessions Court acquitted them but on an appeal by the State of Kerala High
Court set aside their acquittal and convicted them under Section 120-B(1) and
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 2, Karthikeyan was also convicted
under Section 411 IPC. They have, therefore, filed this appeal under Section 2(a) of
the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970

Page 10 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 ISSUES
Following issues were argued and decided on by the hon’ble court-
1.

Arguments Advanced

Following contentions are presented by the parties to the case before the supreme court:-
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: -
(1) A-1 had sufficient motive to exterminate Tomy and his family.

(2) A-1 along with A-2, who was the neighbour of A-1 and with whom she had developed
illicit intimacy, first tried to ruin the family of Tomy with the aid of persons practising black
magic and witch-craft.
Page 11 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
(3) First attempt by A-1, A-2 and A-3 to administer insecticide to Merli and her children on
29.5.1980.

(4) Second attempt by A-1, A-2, and A-3 to administer a stronger insecticide to Merli and
her children on 10.6.1980.

(5) A-4 joined the conspiracy and procured cyanide from a goldsmith through PW-27.

(6) Testing of effectiveness of that cyanide by A-1 and A-3 on a cat, which died and whose
body was buried by A-3 in the compound of A-1.

(7) A-1 seen going to the house of Tomy on 23.6.1980 at about 6.30 P.M. and falsely telling
persons, whom she met on the way, that she was going to Tharakan's Hospital.

(8) A-3 and A-4 were also seen following A-1 and going towards the house of Tomy.

(9) A-1 was seen coming out of the house at about 7.30 P.M.

(10) A-3 and A-4 were seen together near the place of occurrence at about 8.30 P.M. and
thereafter at another place not far away. A-2 was also seen near that place at about 9.00
P.M.

(11) A-3 and A-4's disclosure to the doctor who examined them as to how they had received
injuries on their hands.

(12) Discovery by A-2 of a gold chain belonging to the deceased.

(13) Recovery of empty bottles of Parataph and Eccalex on the information given by A-3.

(14) Discovery by A-2 of a mixture of insecticide purchased earlier for killing the deceased.
Page 12 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
 (15) Discovery by A-4 of a bottle containing cyanide.

Arguments respondent

(2) Merli and her son's having committed suicide by taking poison4
(3)

Page 13 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CHAPTER II: AN ANALYSIS OF NAJABHAI DESURBHAI WAGH vs VALERBHAI
DEGANBHAI VAGH & Ors

In the Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh vs Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh & Ors case, the Court
acknowledged the wider and literal interpretation of section 149 of IPC1. Section 149 deals with
‘unlawful assembly’. It is read as: “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
offence2”. Further, there were many other sections used in this case- Section 302 which is read
as: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall
also be liable to fine”.3 Section 326 is read as: “Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing
or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by
means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or
by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the
human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall
be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”.4
Further, in virtue of offence of unlawful assembly, if an offence of murder is committed, then
Section 302 is read with Sections 149/34 IPC. Section 34 is read as: “When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone”.
The court in this case, held accuse, liable for offence under Section 326 read with 149 IPC.

Page 14 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

1
IPC ,1860.
2
Bare Act, IPC, 1860.
3
Ibid.
4
Bare Act, IPC ,1860.

ISSUES RAISED:
1. confessions were neither oral nor extra judicial. In both cases confessional
statements were made before a Magistrate and were reduced to writing.?
2. What are the two alternative forms of section 149 of IPC?
3. What are the essential ingredients of section 149 of IPC?
4. What are the ‘common objects’ under IPC, making assemblance of five or more persons,
unlawful under section 149 IPC?

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:

1. The respondents attacked on the appellants with the common object of murder. Hence, they
must be held liable for offence under section 302 read with sections 149/34 IPC.
2. The respondents must be held liable under section 324, 325, and 326 read with 149/34 IPC.
3. The respondents must be held liable under 2nd form of section 149 IPC as they had the
knowledge of murder to be committed in prosecution of the common object of attacking.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

1. The common object of the assembly was not the murder as it cannot be determined from the
facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the respondents cannot be held liable for offence
under section 302 read with sections 149/34 IPC.
2. The injury to the appellants, was not caused voluntarily and by means of any dangerous
weapon. Hence, the respondents cannot be held liable under section 324,325, and 326 read with
149/34 IPC.
3. The appellants must not be held liable under 2nd form of section 149 IPC as they had only
object to attack on the appellants.

DECISION:

Page 15 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

The Supreme Court held that the accused Nos. are not liable for offence under section 302 read
with section 149/34. The accused were convicted of section 326 read with sections 149/34 as the
respondents caused grievous hurt by the means of dangerous weapons. Further, there was no
common object of murder as it can be determined easily from the facts and circumstances of the
case. Hence, the respondents cannot be held liable under section 302 read with section 149/34.
RATIONALE:
The Supreme Court in its judgement, clearly mentioned that the common object of the assembly
was to attack on the appellants. To this, the court also supplemented by highlighting that the
respondents had no knowledge of the offence of murder to be committed in prosecution of the
object. Further, the expression ‘knew’, used under section 149 IPC, does not mean a mere
possibility, such as might or might not happen. Also, the court expressly told that in order to
make each and every member of the unlawful assembly, liable under section 149 IPC, the
common object of the assembly must fall under section 141 IPC.

CHAPTERIZATION III: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

It appears to be in this way, on a little thought, to be evident that the two choices of Section 149
don't spread every single imaginable instance of an offence being submitted by one individual
from an unlawful get together during when the basic object of the gathering is being indicted. It
pursues that in each preliminary of prisoners on a charge encircled under the arrangements of
Section 149 of Penal Code, even at the point when it is demonstrated that the predefined offence
was submitted by one of the individuals from the gathering during, in a manner of speaking, the
pendency of that gathering, it yet stays an issue of truth to be resolved on the proof whether that
offence was submitted in indictment of the common object, as I have attempted to clarify the
significance of those words in the initial segment of the Section; and, if not, regardless of
whether it was an offence, for example, the individuals from the get together knew to probably
be submitted in the indictment of the common object.

Page 16 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES
1. IPC, 1860

ONLINE SOURCES

 http://manupatra.com

Page 17 of 17|NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL