Supreme Court Acquits Union Leaders in Murder Case: Chaitu Gowala vs. State of Assam (2022)

Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 743
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can mere presence at a crime scene lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving two union leaders accused of murder. The court overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime. This judgment underscores the importance of direct involvement in criminal acts, particularly when applying the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Rupak Kumar Gogoi, the Managing Director of a company where the accused, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, worked as President and Secretary of the Union, respectively. On the day of the incident, a group of laborers gathered to protest over wage disputes. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with other co-accused, were responsible for the murder of the Managing Director. The trial court convicted 13 accused, including Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, under Sections 302 (murder), 392 (robbery), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 149 (vicarious liability) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Gauhati High Court upheld this conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted 13 accused, including the appellants, for offenses under Sections 302, 392, 148, 323, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other penalties. The Gauhati High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused. Subsequently, six accused filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The special leave petition of four accused was dismissed on 25.03.2019. The Supreme Court then heard the appeal of the remaining two accused, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 392, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for robbery.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for rioting with a deadly weapon.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with vicarious liability, stating that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense. The section states: “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that there was no evidence to show that they caused any injury to the deceased or participated in the commission of the offenses.
• They contended that they were present as office bearers of the Union and tried to control the situation when the laborers attacked the Managing Director.
• It was submitted that there was no evidence that the appellants instigated the mob.
• The appellants emphasized that mere presence at the scene of the crime does not equate to participation in the crime.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellants, being office bearers, came out when the mob gathered and spoke something in their own language, which instigated the laborers.
• The State relied on the depositions of eye witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW6 to support their claim that the appellants were part of the unlawful assembly and hence, liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the appellants, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, could be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that the requirements of Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder were not met by the appellants’ actions.
• The Court held that the requirements of Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, for vicarious liability were not met by the appellants’ actions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the absence of concrete evidence linking the appellants to the murder. The Court noted that the appellants were present as union leaders and that there was no evidence to prove that they instigated the mob or caused any injury to the deceased. The Court highlighted that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt, particularly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court underscored that the prosecution must prove a direct link between the accused and the crime, or that the accused shared a common objective with the other members of the unlawful assembly.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the evidence presented. The Court stated, “On considering deposition of the eye witnesses, nothing is forthcoming that the appellants caused any injury on the deceased and/or participated in any manner in commission of the offences for which they are convicted.” Further, the Court observed, “Nothing is on record what was uttered by the accused – Chaitu Gowala. Therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence that the appellants attacked and/or caused any injury to the deceased and/or even the PSO and in absence of any evidence what was uttered by the appellants – accused in their own language and in absence of any evidence that the appellants instigated the labourers – others co-accused, we are of the opinion that the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.” The Court also noted, “If the entire evidence and the deposition of the eye witnesses are scanned, it appears that in fact the appellants were present there as office bearers of the Union.”

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the lack of direct evidence was the primary factor in its decision. The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the acquittal of the appellants.

Key Takeaways

✓ Mere presence at a crime scene is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
✓ The prosecution must provide concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime.
✓ Vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires proof of a common object and active participation or instigation.
✓ This judgment emphasizes the importance of direct evidence in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the appellants, Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution must provide concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime, or that the accused shared a common objective with the other members of the unlawful assembly. This judgment reinforces the need for direct evidence in criminal cases and clarifies the limitations of vicarious liability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted Chaitu Gowala and Ajay Ahari, overturning their conviction for murder. The court emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the appellants to the crime and clarified that mere presence at a crime scene does not establish guilt under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the principle that vicarious liability requires proof of a common objective and active participation or instigation.