The Supreme Court clarified that simply being at the scene does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly. Courts must establish that the accused shared the common object before convicting.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday made it clear that simply being present at the scene of a crime does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly. The court emphasized that a person can only be held guilty under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if it is proven that they shared the common object of the assembly.
This observation comes as the top court laid down detailed guidelines for courts to protect innocent spectators or passive onlookers from being wrongly convicted just because they were present.
ALSO READ: Gift Under Mohammedan Law Doesn’t Need Writing: Supreme Court| Hiba Explained
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these remarks while acquitting 12 individuals who were serving life sentences for murder and unlawful assembly in a Bihar village case dating back to 1988.
The bench stressed that when allegations are made against a large number of people, courts must scrutinize the evidence carefully, especially when the evidence appears unclear or hazy.
The court analyzed Section 149 of the IPC, which states that
“every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of a common object.”
The bench explained that the law applies
“if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly (of five or more persons) in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or if the members of the assembly know that the said offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every person who, at the time of committing that offence, was a member of that assembly, will be guilty of that offence.”
However, the court clarified,
“Mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of the unlawful assembly, unless it is established that such an accused also shared its common object. A mere bystander, to whom no specific role is attributed, would not fall within the ambit of section 149 of the IPC.”
The bench further explained that the prosecution must prove, either directly or indirectly through circumstances, that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The court said,
“The test to determine whether a person is a passive onlooker or an innocent bystander is the same as that applied to ascertain the existence of a common object,”
The Supreme Court noted that the existence of a common object must be inferred from the facts of each case, including factors such as the time and place where the assembly was formed, the conduct and behaviour of its members near the scene of the crime, the collective behaviour of the assembly versus individual members, the motive behind the crime, the manner in which the events unfolded, the type of weapons used, and the nature of the injuries inflicted.
Justice Pardiwala, writing the verdict for the bench, said,
“The court, as a matter of caution, has enunciated parameters to safeguard innocent spectators or passive onlookers from being convicted merely on account of their presence.”
He added that this caution does not reduce the principle of constructive liability, where it is not necessary to prove an overt act by each individual.
The verdict said,
“Where the presence of a large number of persons is established and many are implicated, prudence mandates strict adherence to this rule of caution,”
Summarizing the law, the top court observed that when general allegations are made against many people, courts should be careful before convicting all of them based on vague or general evidence.
The court noted,
“Therefore, the courts ought to look for some cogent and credible material that lends assurance. It is safe to convict only those whose presence is not only consistently established from the stage of FIR, but also to whom overt acts are attributed which are in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly,”
The Supreme Court also clarified that the phrase “in prosecution of the common object” in Section 149 of the IPC means the crime must be directly connected with the assembly’s common object, or, after reviewing the evidence, it must appear that the act was done with the intention of accomplishing that common object.
The bench emphasized the importance of identifying whether certain members of an assembly were merely passive onlookers who joined out of idle curiosity without knowing the assembly’s common object.
“We say so because the nucleus of section 149 is ‘common object’.”
Once the two main criteria of Section 149 are satisfied — either that an offence is committed by a member of the assembly in prosecution of the common object, or that the members knew the offence was likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object —
“every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a member of the assembly is to be held guilty of that offence.”
This verdict provides clear guidance for courts across India, ensuring that innocent bystanders are not wrongly implicated while maintaining the principle of collective responsibility under Section 149 IPC.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI BR Gavai
