Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court

While upholding the conviction of accused persons in a criminal case where five persons belonging to the same family lost their lives, the Supreme Court has held that once the common object of unlawful assembly is established, every member becomes vicariously liable for the acts committed in prosecution of such object.

The Apex Court was considering the appeals challenging the final judgment passed by the Patna High Court in a Government Appeal affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court against the appellants in connection with a gruesome incident of mass violence which took place in 1983 in Village Jamalpur in the State of Bihar.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated, “Once the common object of the unlawful assembly stands established, every member thereof becomes vicariously liable for acts committed in prosecution of such common object. The liability contemplated under Section 149 IPC squarely stands attracted in the facts of the present case.”

“The contention that some of the appellants were mere spectators deserves outright rejection. The evidence-on-record clearly establishes active participation by the accused persons in different stages of the occurrence, including surrounding the house, setting it on fire, chasing the victims and assaulting them with lethal weapons”, it added.

Factual Background

The genesis of the occurrence lay in an earlier dispute relating to a pumping set and refusal by the prosecution side to withdraw a criminal case concerning the alleged loot of a khesari crop. On the date of occurrence, which coincided with the festival of Holi, a large mob armed with deadly weapons set the residential house of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary of Village Jamalpur on fire. The incident was reported to the police, leading to the registration of a case. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheets were laid, and the accused persons were sent up for trial. It was alleged that at the relevant time, Mahanth Indradeo Jyoti, one of the deceased, was attempting to defend the inmates of the house with his licensed gun and revolver. The family members who attempted to flee from the burning house towards the southern field were chased and mercilessly assaulted by the members of the unlawful assembly. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 436, 302, 149, 324, 34, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Accused, the then Circle Officer, was separately charged under Sections 302,436,379,324,109 and 323 of the IPC on the allegation that he had actively abetted the commission of the offences. The Trial Court acquitted some while convicting others. Aggrieved thereby, the convicted accused preferred appeals before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeals, several appellants expired, and the appeals stood abated against them. The High Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, accepted the plea of juvenility raised by Appellants 21, 34 and 38 and referred their cases to the Juvenile Justice Board for consequential proceedings. Insofar as the remaining appellants were concerned, the High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court, and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon them.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the medical evidence fully established that the deceased persons died due to homicidal ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp-cutting and hard blunt weapons, and numerous injured witnesses had sustained serious injuries, which was consistent with the ocular version. The Bench noted that the High Court had meticulously summarised the role of each accused person and identified those who ignited the straw, those who set the house on fire, those who chased the fleeing victims and those who inflicted fatal blows upon the deceased persons.

The Bench stated, “The findings recorded by the High Court clearly establish that the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly, were armed with deadly weapons and acted in furtherance of their common object of setting the house ablaze and causing death of members of the family of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary.”

Dealing with the contention of prior hostility, the Bench held that the same can never justify the formation of an unlawful assembly of such magnitude, armed with deadly weapons, leading to the brutal killing of five persons and causing grievous injuries to numerous others. As per the Bench, the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the ingredients of the offences charged against the appellants and the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were based upon proper appreciation of evidence. The Bench held that the same did not suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

“The brutality of the incident, in which five persons belonging to the same family lost their lives and several others including women and children sustained serious injuries, shocks the judicial conscience. The Courts below have rightly observed that the case leaves no room for misplaced sympathy or leniency”, it stated.

Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeals. “The surviving accused persons, except those who have been granted the benefit of juvenility by this Court or Courts below, are directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial Court concerned and serve the remaining part of their sentence”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Mahendra Rai @ Harendra Narain Singh v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 560)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Viresh B. Saharya, Advocates Akshat Agarwal, Rishabh Sahai Mathur, AOR Satish Pandey, AOR Shikhar Srivastava, AOR Prerna Singh

Respondent: AOR Samir Ali Khan, Advocates Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan

Click here to read/download Judgment








Tags: