Date of the Judgment: October 17, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 902
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a member of an unlawful assembly be convicted of murder even if they did not directly inflict the fatal blow? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a deadly land dispute, ultimately upholding the conviction of an individual for murder based on the principle of vicarious liability within an unlawful assembly. The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, delivered the judgment, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case stems from a land dispute between siblings in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. Dalip Singh and his nephews, Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh, jointly owned sixteen acres of land. A partition was made, with Dalip Singh cultivating the land east of a dividing hedge and Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh cultivating the land to the west. Later, Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh wanted to exchange land, which Dalip Singh refused. This dispute led to civil litigation and eventually, a violent incident. On October 26, 1980, Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh, along with 20-25 laborers, began harvesting paddy from Dalip Singh’s field. Dalip Singh, along with his sons, PW-1 Darshan Singh and PW-2 Nirmal Singh, went to the field to stop them. The situation escalated, with the accused party, including the appellant Gurmail Singh, armed with various weapons.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to 1980 | Dalip Singh, Thakur Singh, and Chanan Singh jointly owned sixteen acres of land. |
| Prior to 1980 | Partition of land occurred with Dalip Singh cultivating land east of the hedge and Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh cultivating land west of the hedge. |
| Prior to 1980 | Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh sought an exchange of lands, which was not agreeable to Dalip Singh. |
| October 26, 1980 | Thakur Singh and Chanan Singh, with 20-25 laborers, began harvesting paddy from Dalip Singh’s field. |
| October 26, 1980 | Dalip Singh and his sons went to the field to stop them. A violent confrontation ensued. |
| October 26, 1980 | Dalip Singh sustained firearm injuries and died en route to the hospital. |
| October 27, 1980 | Postmortem of Dalip Singh was conducted. |
| June 10, 1982 | Trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). |
| August 19, 2014 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. |
| During the pendency of appeal | Seven of the accused persons died. |
Course of Proceedings
The Additional Sessions Judge – III, Rampur, convicted the appellants and eight others under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, along with other offenses. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed their appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. During the pendency of the appeal, seven of the convicts died, leading to the abatement of the appeal for them. The Supreme Court appeal was filed by Gurmail Singh and Kewal Singh, however, Kewal Singh died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was pursued only by Gurmail Singh.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with vicarious liability in unlawful assemblies. Section 149 of the IPC 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.”
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the punishment for murder: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The court also considered Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 147 (punishment for rioting), and 148 (rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon) of the IPC.
Arguments
The appellant, Gurmail Singh, argued that he should not be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. His primary submission was that the postmortem report did not attribute any of the injuries to him, and that he was only carrying a ballam (spear), which was not found to have caused any of the injuries. He sought to have his conviction altered to one under Section 304 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The appellant contended that the prosecution did not establish any overt act on his part.
The State argued that the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of Dalip Singh. The State contended that the prosecution had established the presence and participation of the appellant in the unlawful assembly. The State further contended that the non-recovery of the weapon was not a ground to discard the evidence of the injured eye witnesses.
| Appellant’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ No ante-mortem injuries were attributable to him. | ✓ The appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly. |
| ✓ He was only carrying a ballam (spear). | ✓ The common object of the assembly was to commit murder. |
| ✓ No weapon was recovered from him. | ✓ The prosecution established the presence and participation of the appellant. |
| ✓ The conviction should be altered to Section 304 of IPC. | ✓ The non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground to discard the evidence of the injured eye witnesses. |
| ✓ Prosecution did not establish any overt act on his part. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the prosecution must establish individual overt acts by each member of an unlawful assembly to establish culpability based on the principle of constructive/vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC.
- Whether the reduction in the number of convicts below five due to the death of co-convicts affects the vicarious liability of the surviving convict(s) under Section 149 of the IPC.
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/149 of the IPC is liable to be altered to one under Section 304/149 of the IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether individual overt acts are required for culpability under Section 149 of the IPC. | The Court held that the prosecution does not need to establish individual overt acts for each member of an unlawful assembly. Membership in the assembly with an active mind to achieve the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability. |
| Whether the death of co-convicts affects vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC. | The Court held that the reduction in the number of convicts due to death does not affect the vicarious liability of the surviving convicts. This is different from cases where the number is reduced due to acquittal. |
| Whether the conviction under Section 302/149 of the IPC should be altered to Section 304/149 of the IPC. | The Court held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder, and the appellant failed to bring the case within any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302/149 of the IPC was upheld. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to reach its decision:
| Authority | Court | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Amerika Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2011 SC 1379) | Supreme Court of India | Established that presence in an unlawful assembly with an active mind to achieve the common object makes a person vicariously liable. |
| Surendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2012 SC 1743) | Supreme Court of India | Held that the common object can be inferred from the weapons, movements, acts of violence, and the result of the actions of the unlawful assembly. |
| Yunis alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2003 SC 539) | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction, even without an overt act attributed to him. |
| Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab ((1987) 1 SCC 679) | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that if the number of accused persons is reduced below five due to acquittal, Section 149 of the IPC cannot be applied. |
| Nethala Pothuraju & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ((1992) 1 SCC 49) | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that Section 149 cannot be applied if the number of accused persons is reduced below five due to acquittal. |
| Harnam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ((1975) 3 SCC 343) | Supreme Court of India | Established that Section 394 of CrPC does not apply to appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. |
| Hari Prasad Chhapolia Vs. UOI ((2008) 7 SCC 690) | Supreme Court of India | Held that the principles of Section 394 of the CrPC apply to appeals filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. |
| Kuldeep Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar ((2011) 5 SCC 324) | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that the incriminating act must be done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly and must be within the knowledge of the other members. |
| Jai Karan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. ((2003) 12 SCC 655) | Supreme Court of India | Upheld the conviction of accused persons based on witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence. |
| Rakesh and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ((2021) 7 SCC 188) | Supreme Court of India | Held that the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offense is not a prerequisite for conviction. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that no ante-mortem injuries were attributable to him. | The Court held that the appellant’s membership in the unlawful assembly made him vicariously liable for the acts of the assembly, regardless of whether he directly inflicted the fatal injuries. |
| Appellant’s submission that he was only carrying a ballam (spear). | The Court noted that the weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly, including firearms, indicated that the common object was to commit murder. |
| Appellant’s submission that no weapon was recovered from him. | The Court stated that the non-recovery of the weapon was not a ground to discard the evidence of the injured eye witnesses. |
| Appellant’s submission that the conviction should be altered to Section 304 of IPC. | The Court held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder, and the appellant failed to bring the case within any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. |
| Appellant’s submission that prosecution did not establish any overt act on his part. | The Court held that the prosecution does not need to establish individual overt acts for each member of an unlawful assembly. Membership in the assembly with an active mind to achieve the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Amerika Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2011 SC 1379)* | Followed to establish that mere presence in an unlawful assembly with an active mind to achieve the common object makes a person vicariously liable. |
| Surendra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2012 SC 1743)* | Followed to infer the common object from the weapons, movements, acts of violence, and the result. |
| Yunis alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2003 SC 539)* | Followed to hold that presence in the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction even without an overt act. |
| Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab ((1987) 1 SCC 679)* | Distinguished to clarify that it applies to cases of acquittal, not death of co-convicts. |
| Nethala Pothuraju & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ((1992) 1 SCC 49)* | Distinguished to clarify that it applies to cases of acquittal, not death of co-convicts. |
| Harnam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ((1975) 3 SCC 343)* | Followed to hold that Section 394 of CrPC does not apply to appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. |
| Hari Prasad Chhapolia Vs. UOI ((2008) 7 SCC 690)* | Followed to hold that the principles of Section 394 of the CrPC apply to appeals filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. |
| Kuldeep Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar ((2011) 5 SCC 324)* | Followed to clarify that the incriminating act must be done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly and must be within the knowledge of the other members. |
| Jai Karan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. ((2003) 12 SCC 655)* | Followed to uphold the conviction based on witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence. |
| Rakesh and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ((2021) 7 SCC 188)* | Followed to hold that the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offense is not a prerequisite for conviction. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that once membership in an unlawful assembly with a common object is established, individual overt acts are not necessary for conviction. The Court also noted that the weapons used by the members of the unlawful assembly, including firearms, indicated an intention to commit murder. The concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the appellant’s presence and participation in the unlawful assembly, as well as the corroboration of the eyewitness testimonies by medical evidence, also played a significant role in the Court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC | 30% |
| Common Object of Unlawful Assembly | 25% |
| Eyewitness Testimony | 20% |
| Medical Evidence | 15% |
| Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that he did not commit any overt act, emphasizing that Section 149 of the IPC establishes vicarious liability for all members of an unlawful assembly if the common object is to commit an offense. The court also rejected the argument that the death of co-convicts affected the appellant’s liability, distinguishing between death and acquittal.
The Supreme Court stated:
“The object of Section 149 is to make specific that person whose case comes within its gamut cannot be permitted to put forth a defence that he did not, with his own hand, commit the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.”
The Court also noted:
“When the fact is that Dalip Singh sustained two gunshots and even thereafter, he was attacked by the members of the unlawful assembly, how the common object can be said to be one other than committing murder of Dalip Singh.”
The Court further observed:
“In the facts and circumstances, revealed from the evidence appreciated by the courts below the conclusion arrived by them that the unlawful assembly was having the common object to commit murder of Dalip Singh cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Membership in an unlawful assembly with a common object makes each member vicariously liable for the actions of the assembly.
- ✓ Individual overt acts are not required for conviction under Section 149 of the IPC if the common object is established.
- ✓ The death of co-convicts does not affect the vicarious liability of the surviving convicts.
- ✓ The common object of the unlawful assembly can be inferred from the weapons, movements, acts of violence, and the result of the actions of the assembly.
- ✓ The non-recovery of weapons is not a ground to reject the evidence of reliable eyewitnesses.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that membership in an unlawful assembly with a common object is sufficient for vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC, and the death of co-convicts does not affect this liability. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on vicarious liability in unlawful assemblies and clarifies the distinction between the death of co-convicts and their acquittal.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Gurmail Singh for murder under Section 302/149 of the IPC, emphasizing the principle of vicarious liability in unlawful assemblies. The Court found that the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, and that the death of co-convicts did not affect his liability. This judgment reinforces the legal position that members of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for the actions of the assembly, even if they did not directly commit the offense.