The Supreme Court reaffirmed that once participation in an unlawful assembly is proven, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in pursuit of the common object, upholding convictions under Section 149 IPC for a coordinated fatal attack.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that once participation in an unlawful assembly is established, every member of that assembly becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in pursuit of the common object. The ruling came as the Apex Court upheld the conviction of two co-accused in a brutal murder case from Maharashtra.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the accused, confirming the Bombay High Court’s judgment convicting them under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Supreme Court Observation
The Bench emphasized that Section 149 IPC unequivocally makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of offences committed in prosecution of the common object, or those which members knew were likely to be committed in furtherance of that object.
Quoting its earlier landmark ruling in Masalti v. State of U.P., the Court clarified:
“It is not necessary for each member of the unlawful assembly to have committed a specific overt act. Once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.”
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, a group of armed assailants intercepted a vehicle and launched a coordinated attack using sharp weapons, resulting in one person’s death and serious injuries to two others.
The Trial Court had acquitted some of the accused while convicting others. Both sides appealed to the Bombay High Court — the State challenging acquittals, and the convicted individuals seeking reversal.
Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, finding that all the accused acted jointly with a clear common object to kill. Consequently, the High Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the High Court had wrongly interfered with their acquittal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Apex Court observed that interference with an acquittal is justified only when the trial court’s findings are manifestly unreasonable or contrary to evidence. Referring to Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that appellate courts have the power to reassess evidence where material facts have been misappreciated.
Upon review, the Court found the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses to be credible, natural, and consistent with medical evidence. It noted that the accused had arrived together on motorcycles, armed with lethal weapons, forcibly stopped the victims’ vehicle, and launched a premeditated, coordinated assault.
The medical evidence corroborated multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp weapons, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
“The harmony between the medical and ocular evidence leaves no scope for doubt as to the active participation of the appellants in the premeditated attack,”
the Bench observed.
Rejecting the defence argument that there was no common object to commit murder, the Court held that the collective conduct of the accused clearly demonstrated a shared intent to commit the offence.
Finding that the Trial Court had overlooked material evidence and taken an implausible view, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s well-reasoned judgment.
The Bench concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that executed a deliberate and planned attack, resulting in death and grievous injuries.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit, affirming the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocates Sushil Balwada, AOR, Kaushal Yadav, Anand Dilip Landge, Sangeeta Nenwani and others
Respondent: Advocates Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, and Shrirang B. Varma
Case Title:
Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinakar Kharuse & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1755 OF 2011
READ JUDGMENT
