Every Member Of Unlawful Assembly Guilty Of Offence In Furtherance Of Common Object: Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment For Co-Accused In A Murder Case
Holding that culpability arises from participation in a group sharing a common object, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that once an unlawful assembly is proved, every member is vicariously liable for the offence committed in furtherance of that common object.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of two co-accused in a murder case, reiterating that once participation in an unlawful assembly is proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.
The Apex Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had overturned acquittals under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for a fatal assault in which one person died and two others sustained grievous injuries.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while upholding the conviction, observed that “Section 149 of the IPC unequivocally provides that every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object or of one which such members knew to be likely committed in furtherance thereof.”
Further, while referring to its own ruling in Masalti v. State of U.P., the Bench clarified that “it is not necessary for each member of the unlawful assembly to have committed a specific overt act”, stating that “once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.”
Advocates Sushil Balwada and Anand Dilip Landge appeared on behalf of the appellants, while Advocate Bharat Bagla appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
As per the prosecution, a group of assailants intercepted a vehicle and mounted a coordinated attack using sharp weapons. One person died on the spot, while two others sustained multiple injuries. The trial court acquitted some of the accused while convicting others.
Both sides approached the High Court. The State challenged the acquittals, while the convicted persons filed appeals seeking reversal of their convictions. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence, relied on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses and medical reports, and convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Aggrieved, the appellants then approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court began by noting that interference with an acquittal is permissible if the findings of the trial court are manifestly unreasonable or contrary to evidence. Relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that an appellate court can reassess evidence where the trial court has misappreciated material facts.
Upon examining the records, the Court found that the testimony of injured eyewitnesses was natural, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. Their depositions established that the assailants arrived together on motorcycles, armed with sharp weapons, forcibly stopped the vehicle, dragged the victims out, surrounded them, and launched a coordinated attack.
The medical reports, the Court held, confirmed multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp weapons, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, stating that “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.”
Rejecting the principal defence advanced on behalf of the appellants that there was no common object to commit murder, the Court held that “the prosecution has clearly established that all the accused persons, including the appellants, arrived together, armed with lethal weapons and jointly executed a deliberate and coordinated assault on the deceased and other victims.”
The Bench emphasised that under Section 149, it is not necessary to prove a specific overt act by each member. Once participation in an unlawful assembly and knowledge of the likely outcome are proved, each member becomes vicariously liable.
The Bench also found that the Trial Court had overlooked material evidence and adopted an implausible view. The High Court correctly re-evaluated the record and arrived at findings consistent with the law, the Apex Court concluded.
Conclusion
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that executed a planned attack resulting in death and grievous injuries.
Accordingly, the Apex Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit.
Cause Title: Haribhau Bhausaheb Dinakar Kharuse v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1266)
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