On September 4, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Allahabad High Court, affirming the conviction of an appellant involved in a murder case under the provisions of unlawful assembly and rioting.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the verdict in the case, reinforcing the principle that a person’s mere presence in an unlawful assembly is enough for conviction, regardless of whether they caused any injury during the crime.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a murder incident involving a family dispute.
According to the prosecution, the conflict arose when Laxmi Narain, one of three brothers, executed a will in favor of the sons of his brother Satya Narain, causing anger and resentment from their third brother, Shree Dev, and his three sons, including the appellant, Nitya Nand.
The accused attacked Satya Narain using knives, a kanta (a sharp weapon), and country-made pistols at a temple in Govardhan Nath Ji.
During the attack, when Sarwan Kumar, the son of the deceased, tried to intervene, the appellant allegedly fired a pistol to scare away the others, helping the accused escape the scene.
The trial court sentenced the appellant and three others to life imprisonment under Sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon) and 302/149 (murder in furtherance of a common object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that there were no injuries caused by his pistol, and neither the weapon nor any cartridges were recovered from the crime scene.
However, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant’s defense argued that he was wrongfully convicted under Section 148 and 302/149 IPC.
His counsel highlighted that no injuries were caused by his pistol, and the lack of weapon recovery raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
The defense further argued that two crucial witnesses, Laxmi Narain and Kuldeep Kumar Tiwari, had not been examined, calling into question the completeness of the investigation.
The appellant’s counsel maintained that a conviction must be based on solid evidence, not mere suspicion and that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused in the absence of concrete proof.
Prosecution’s Stand
On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the appellant’s participation in the unlawful assembly with a common objective of murder was enough for conviction.
The two eyewitnesses, who were sons of the deceased, testified that the appellant played an active role in facilitating the escape of the other accused by firing his pistol.
The non-recovery of the weapon or cartridges was considered a minor issue that did not significantly affect the prosecution’s case.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction, stating that under Section 149 of the IPC, all members of an unlawful assembly can be held accountable for any crimes committed in furtherance of the common objective.
The Court emphasized that it is not necessary to prove that a particular member of the assembly caused any specific injury. Merely being part of the unlawful assembly that committed the crime is enough to establish guilt.
The bench also clarified that Section 149 IPC creates a vicarious liability, meaning that every member of an unlawful assembly can be held guilty for offenses committed by the group, even if they did not directly participate in the act.
The Court reiterated that under Section 149, the relevant question is whether the accused was part of the unlawful assembly, not whether they caused harm.
Verdict
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that when charged under Section 149 IPC, a person can be convicted based solely on their participation in an unlawful assembly, regardless of whether they inflicted any injury.
The ruling highlights the importance of holding every member of such assemblies accountable for crimes committed in furtherance of their common objective.