The Supreme Court has held that once the prosecution proves an unlawful assembly, it need not identify the individual who delivered the fatal blow. The Court said every member of such assembly incurs vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had diluted the conviction. The High Court had converted the offence from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC). It did so mainly because the prosecution could not prove which accused caused the fatal injury.
The Supreme Court observed:
“Once it is established that an unlawful assembly existed and the accused-respondents intended to commit murder…in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, the individual attribution of the fatal injury fades into insignificance. It is trite law that Section 149 IPC embodies the principle of vicarious liability and renders every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.”
The Court also noted:
“Conduct of each person forming the unlawful assembly, coupled with participation in prosecution of the common object, is sufficient to fasten vicarious liability on every member of the assembly for the offence committed by any member of that assembly.”
Background
The case arose from an incident dated July 11, 2003. The deceased was travelling in a mini bus. The prosecution alleged that the accused blocked the road by placing tube-well pipes across the passage. When the vehicle stopped, the accused allegedly came out armed with lathis. They allegedly launched a concerted assault. The assault led to the death of Bhaggu @ Bhag Chand.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, and 302/149 IPC. It sentenced them to life imprisonment.
High Court’s modification
The High Court accepted that an unlawful assembly existed. However, it changed the murder conviction. It relied on two reasons. First, it held that death occurred due to a “single injury.” Second, it said the prosecution failed to prove which accused delivered the fatal blow.
On that basis, the High Court concluded that a common object to commit murder could not be inferred. It therefore convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC. It also reduced the sentence to six years’ rigorous imprisonment. This order led the complainants to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s findings
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning conflicted with Section 149 IPC. The Supreme Court said the High Court could not accept Section 149 and still treat the non-identification of the fatal assailant as decisive.
The judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed:
“While affirming the invocation of Section 149 IPC, it went on to record that the prosecution could not prove the identity of the assailant who caused the fatal injury to the deceased Bhaggu. This approach runs contrary to the very principle of vicarious liability embodied in Section 149 IPC. The conclusion so drawn by the High Court is perverse without any justifiable foundation, and hence, the same cannot be sustained.”
The Court reiterated that the identity of the fatal assailant does not matter once the prosecution proves the offence took place in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly. It stated that:
“…it is immaterial as to which accused delivered the fatal injury, once the offence is shown to have been committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.”
Directions
The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s sentence. It directed the accused persons to surrender within eight weeks to undergo the remaining sentence imposed by the trial court.
Cause Title: Sitaram Kuchhbedia versus Vimal Rana and Others (and connected matter)
