Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Haalesh vs. State of Karnataka (2024)

Date of the Judgment: February 2, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 87

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a group of individuals be held responsible for murder even if not all of them directly participated in the act? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a brutal attack stemming from a property dispute. The court examined whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with a common intention to commit murder, thus making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, upholds the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the concept of shared responsibility in unlawful assemblies.

Case Background

The case revolves around a long-standing property dispute between Shivanna and his brother Ramanna (A-9). Shivanna had won a civil suit against Ramanna, and the decree was under execution. This led to animosity, and it is alleged that Ramanna, along with other accused persons, conspired to kill Shivanna and his family. On September 25, 1999, the accused unlawfully assembled in front of Shivanna’s house with deadly weapons. Accused A-1 to A-3 assaulted Shivanna with choppers, while A-4 and A-5 attacked his wife, Savithramma, and A-6 and A-7 assaulted his daughter, Girija. Shivanna died from his injuries, while his wife and daughter sustained grievous injuries. A-8 and A-9 were present at the door of the house, allegedly instigating the others.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted A-1 to A-7 and sentenced them to maximum imprisonment for life. A-8 and A-9 were acquitted. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7. Subsequently, A-7 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 2012, A-4 and A-5 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2012, and A-6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 2014 before the Supreme Court. These appeals were clubbed and heard together.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the concept of constructive liability in an unlawful assembly. It states:
  
  “149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. – 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.”

The court examined how Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applies to the case, particularly whether the accused shared a common objective and were thus liable for the actions of the group.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that only A-1 to A-3 assaulted the deceased Shivanna, and therefore, the other accused could not be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• They contended that they were not part of an unlawful assembly, and thus, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not have been applied.
• The medical evidence did not fully support the prosecution’s case, as the doctor suggested the possibility of different weapons being used.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Karnataka):

• The State argued that all accused persons had unlawfully assembled with the intention to eliminate the entire family of Shivanna.
• Even if some of the accused did not directly assault Shivanna, they were all guilty of murder due to their common intention and the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses was sufficient to prove the use of choppers, despite the doctor’s opinion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the accused persons were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder, making them liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the concept of constructive liability in an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.

The court did not cite any cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court applied this section to hold all members of the unlawful assembly guilty of the murder committed by some members.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court used this section to determine the punishment for the murder committed by the unlawful assembly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Ocular Evidence: The consistent and credible testimony of the eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4), who were present at the scene of the crime, was crucial. Their statements clearly established the sequence of events and the participation of the accused.
• Common Intention: The court emphasized that the accused had assembled with a common intention to eliminate the family of the deceased. This intention, coupled with their actions, made them liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Unlawful Assembly: The court found that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly by gathering with weapons and a common objective. This established their collective responsibility for the crime.
• Lack of Defense Evidence: The accused did not present any defense evidence to counter the prosecution’s claims, which further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that only those who directly assaulted the deceased were liable, emphasizing the concept of shared responsibility in an unlawful assembly. The court also found that the medical evidence did not contradict the eyewitness accounts, and therefore, the prosecution’s case was upheld.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“A plain reading of the above provision abundantly makes clear that an overt act of some of the accused persons of an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the deceased Shivanna and to cause grievous hurt to the other family members is enough to rope in all of them for an offence under Section 302 IPC in aid with Section 149 IPC.”

“The evidence of the aforesaid two eyewitnesses could not be shaken in the cross -examination. Thus, we do not find any illegality on part of the courts below in holding the appellants guilty and to convict them.”

“In the light of the said evidence of the two eyewitnesses, the suggestion or opinion of the doctor cannot prevail as the opinion based upon probability is a weak evidence in comparison to the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses.”

Key Takeaways

• Shared Responsibility: Members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for the actions of the group, even if they did not directly participate in the crime.
• Ocular Evidence: Eyewitness testimony is crucial in criminal cases and can outweigh medical evidence when consistent and credible.
• Common Intention: A common intention to commit a crime is a key factor in determining liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This judgment reinforces the principle that individuals who join an unlawful assembly with a common criminal objective can be held responsible for the actions of the group, even if they did not directly commit the crime. It also highlights the significance of eyewitness testimony in proving guilt.

Directions

The appellants, who were on bail, were directed to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for the crime committed by any member of the assembly if the crime was committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly or if the members knew that the crime was likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles regarding unlawful assembly and common intention.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused. The court emphasized that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly with a common intention to commit murder, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment highlights the importance of shared responsibility in unlawful assemblies and the significance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.