Date of the Judgment: September 4, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 655
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a person be convicted of murder even if they did not directly inflict the fatal injuries? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a family dispute that turned deadly. The court examined the principle of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, affirming the conviction of an individual who was part of a group that committed murder, even though he did not personally cause the death. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, with the opinion authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Satya Narain on September 8, 1992, near Ganga ghat, Ambhagarh Akhada. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Sarwan Kumar, son of the deceased, Satya Narain, along with his brother Laxmi Narain, went to the ghat for their daily bath. They were joined by Bhola Shankar and Kuldeep Kumar Tiwari. While Satya Narain went towards the river, Shree Dev and his four sons, Munna Lal, Raju, Nitya Nand (the appellant), and Uchchav @ Pappu, confronted him. They were armed with various weapons, including kanta, knives, and a country-made pistol. The accused assaulted Satya Narain, who succumbed to his injuries. The FIR also stated that the appellant fired a shot in the air from his country-made pistol, after which all the accused fled the scene. The motive for the murder was a property dispute stemming from Laxmi Narain’s will, which favored Satya Narain’s sons, causing animosity with Shree Dev and his family.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 8, 1992 | Satya Narain murdered near Ganga ghat, Ambhagarh Akhada. FIR lodged by Sarwan Kumar. |
| September 9, 1992 | Post-mortem examination conducted on Satya Narain’s body. |
| September 23, 1992 | Ramesh Chandra Sharma takes over the investigation. |
| October 13, 1992 | Chargesheet submitted against the accused persons. |
| January 20, 1997 | Sessions Court convicts Nitya Nand and others under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). |
| October 25, 1993 | Laxmi Narain, brother of the deceased, is killed. |
| September 27, 2012 | Allahabad High Court upholds the conviction and sentence. |
| February 4, 2013 | Supreme Court issues notice on the special leave petition filed by Nitya Nand. |
| June 30, 2014 | Supreme Court grants leave but rejects the prayer for bail. |
| September 4, 2024 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Judge, Etah, convicted the appellant, Nitya Nand, along with three others, under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment. Another accused, Shree Dev, was convicted under Sections 147 and 302/149 IPC. The convicted individuals appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, Nitya Nand appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 141 IPC: Defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with the common object of committing an illegal act using criminal force.
- Section 146 IPC: Defines rioting as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of its common object.
- Section 148 IPC: Deals with rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, punishable with imprisonment up to three years, fine, or both.
- Section 149 IPC: States that every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offense committed in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly. It establishes vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly. 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.”
- Section 302 IPC: Deals with the punishment for murder, which is imprisonment for life or death.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC was erroneous. The allegation against the appellant was that he carried a country-made pistol and fired it in the air to threaten those trying to rescue Satya Narain.
- No firearm injuries were found on the deceased or anyone else, and no country-made pistol or empty cartridge was recovered from the scene.
- The prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses like Laxmi Narain and Kuldeep Kumar Tiwari. Laxmi Narain was with the deceased and the informant, while Kuldeep Kumar Tiwari was the scribe of the FIR.
- The conviction was based on suspicion and not hard evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State argued that there was a clear motive for the murder due to the property dispute. Shree Dev and his sons were enraged by Laxmi Narain’s will favoring Satya Narain’s sons.
- The appellant was part of the unlawful assembly and was present at the scene of the crime.
- Witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 testified that the appellant fired a country-made pistol in the air to frighten those trying to rescue Satya Narain, enabling the other accused to escape.
- The non-recovery of the pistol or cartridge was not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- The appellant’s act of firing the pistol was an overt act that made him part of the unlawful assembly.
- The ocular evidence was supported by medical evidence, establishing the appellant’s involvement.
- Laxmi Narain could not be presented as a witness because he was killed in 1993, and the appellant was an accused in that case.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC is erroneous | Allegation against appellant was that he carried a country-made pistol and fired in the air. | Appellant |
| No firearm injuries were found on the deceased or anyone else. | Appellant | |
| No country-made pistol or empty cartridge was recovered. | Appellant | |
| Prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses | Laxmi Narain was with the deceased and the informant. | Appellant |
| Kuldeep Kumar Tiwari was the scribe of the FIR. | Appellant | |
| Conviction based on suspicion, not hard evidence. | Conviction was based on suspicion and not hard evidence. | Appellant |
| Clear motive for the murder | Property dispute due to Laxmi Narain’s will. | Respondent |
| Shree Dev and his sons were enraged by the will. | Respondent | |
| Appellant was part of the unlawful assembly. | Respondent | |
| Appellant was present at the scene of the crime. | Respondent | |
| Appellant’s actions at the scene | Appellant fired a country-made pistol in the air. | Respondent |
| This act frightened those trying to rescue Satya Narain. | Respondent | |
| Enabled the other accused to escape. | Respondent | |
| Non-recovery of pistol is not fatal | Non-recovery of pistol or cartridge is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. | Respondent |
| Appellant’s act is an overt act | Appellant’s act of firing the pistol was an overt act that made him part of the unlawful assembly. | Respondent |
| Ocular evidence supported by medical evidence | Ocular evidence was supported by medical evidence, establishing the appellant’s involvement. | Respondent |
| Laxmi Narain could not be presented as a witness | Laxmi Narain was killed in 1993, and the appellant was an accused in that case. | Respondent |
Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument that the appellant’s act of firing the pistol in the air was an overt act that made him a part of the unlawful assembly and liable under Section 149 IPC is a strong point, which was upheld by the Court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the prosecution could establish the culpability of the appellant in the murder of Satya Narain beyond any reasonable doubt, specifically under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution could establish the culpability of the appellant in the murder of Satya Narain beyond any reasonable doubt, specifically under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC? | Yes, the prosecution successfully established the culpability of the appellant. | The Court held that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of eliminating Satya Narain. Even though the appellant did not directly inflict the fatal injuries, his presence and actions (firing a pistol in the air) made him vicariously liable under Section 149 of the IPC. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 11 SCC 237 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Explained Section 149 IPC, stating that it creates a vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly. It emphasized that the fact of causing injury is not relevant, but whether the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly is. |
| Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Reiterated that Section 149 IPC does not create a separate offence but declares the vicarious liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in furtherance of a common object. |
| Yunis alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 1 SCC 425 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that no overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 IPC; the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that he did not cause any injury and no weapon was recovered. | The Court held that under Section 149 IPC, the fact that the appellant did not cause any injury is not relevant. His presence as part of the unlawful assembly was sufficient for conviction. The non-recovery of the weapon was also not fatal to the prosecution’s case. |
| Appellant’s argument that crucial witnesses were not examined. | The Court acknowledged the lacunae in the prosecution regarding the non-examination of witnesses like Kuldeep and Laxmi Narain. However, the Court held that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was consistent and credible, establishing the appellant’s presence and involvement in the unlawful assembly. |
| Respondent’s argument that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of murder. | The Court agreed with the respondent, stating that the appellant was part of the unlawful assembly that committed the murder. His act of firing the pistol in the air facilitated the escape of the other accused and made him vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC. |
| Respondent’s argument that the ocular evidence was supported by medical evidence. | The Court affirmed that the ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was supported by the medical evidence provided by PW-3, establishing that the death was homicidal. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The Court followed this case to explain that Section 149 IPC creates vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly, and the fact of causing injury is not relevant.
- Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel [CITATION]: The Court reiterated that Section 149 IPC does not create a separate offense but declares the vicarious liability of all members of an unlawful assembly.
- Yunis alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P. [CITATION]: The Court followed this case to hold that no overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 IPC; the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s presence in the unlawful assembly, coupled with his act of firing a pistol in the air, made him equally responsible for the murder committed by the other members of the assembly. The consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2, which were corroborated by medical evidence, played a significant role in establishing the appellant’s culpability. The Court also considered the motive behind the crime, stemming from the property dispute, which further solidified the prosecution’s case. The fact that the appellant’s actions facilitated the escape of the other accused was also a crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning. The Court acknowledged the lacunae in the prosecution’s case, but held that those were not sufficient to overturn the conviction, given the overwhelming evidence of the appellant’s participation in the unlawful assembly.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC | 30% |
| Eyewitness Testimony | 25% |
| Medical Evidence | 15% |
| Motive for the Crime | 15% |
| Appellant’s actions facilitating escape | 10% |
| Acknowledgement of lacunae in prosecution | 5% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the argument that no firearm was recovered and that the appellant did not directly cause any injury. However, the Court rejected this argument by emphasizing that under Section 149 IPC, the presence of the appellant in the unlawful assembly with the common object of murder was sufficient for conviction. The Court also rejected the argument that the non-examination of certain witnesses was fatal to the prosecution’s case, stating that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were consistent and credible. The final decision was reached by applying the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, supported by the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The appellant was part of an unlawful assembly that had the common object of killing Satya Narain.
- The appellant’s act of firing a country-made pistol in the air facilitated the escape of the other accused, making him liable under Section 149 IPC.
- The ocular evidence provided by PW-1 and PW-2 was consistent and credible.
- The medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence, establishing that Satya Narain’s death was homicidal.
- The motive for the crime, stemming from a property dispute, further solidified the prosecution’s case.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“Section 149 IPC says that every member of an unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.”
“Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly.”
“no overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 IPC; the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.”
There was no minority opinion in this case. Both judges agreed on the decision and the rationale.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 149 IPC, which establishes vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly. The Court applied this legal principle to the facts of the case, concluding that the appellant’s actions made him liable for the murder committed by the other members of the assembly. The Court also relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence to support its conclusion. The potential implications for future cases are that individuals who are part of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for the actions of other members of the assembly, even if they did not directly commit the offense.
The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reaffirmed the existing principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC. The Court analyzed the arguments for and against the application of this principle to the facts of the case, ultimately concluding that the appellant was liable under the law.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Individuals can be held liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, even if they did not directly inflict the fatal injuries, provided they were part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the crime.
- ✓ The presence of an individual in an unlawful assembly and their actions in furtherance of the common object, such as firing a weapon to facilitate escape, are sufficient to establish vicarious liability.
- ✓ The non-recovery of a weapon or the absence of direct injury caused by an individual is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when the charge is under Section 149 IPC.
This judgment reinforces the principle of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, emphasizing that all members of such an assembly are responsible for the actions of the group. It highlights that mere presence and actions that further the common object are sufficient for conviction, even if the individual did not directly commit the crime.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the actions of other members of the assembly if those actions are in furtherance of the common object of the assembly. This case reaffirms the existing legal position under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and does not introduce any new legal principles. It clarifies that the presence of an individual in an unlawful assembly and their actions in furtherance of the common object are sufficient for conviction, even if they did not directly commit the crime.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Nitya Nand for the murder of Satya Narain. The Court emphasized that under Section 149 IPC, members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for the actions of the group. The appellant’s presence in the unlawful assembly and his act of firing a pistol in the air made him equally responsible for the murder, even though he did not directly inflict the fatal injuries. This judgment reaffirms the principle of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, ensuring that all members are held accountable for the actions of the group.
Category
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories: Section 141, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 146, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Unlawful Assembly, Vicarious Liability, Murder, Criminal Law
FAQ
Q: What is an unlawful assembly?
A: An unlawful assembly is a group of five or more people with the common intention to commit an illegal act using criminal force.
Q: What is vicarious liability in the context of an unlawful assembly?
A: Vicarious liability means that all members of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for the actions of other members if those actions are in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly commit the crime.
Q: Can I be convicted of murder even if I didn’t directly kill someone?
A: Yes, if you are part of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, you can be held liable for the murder even if you didn’t directly inflict the fatal injuries. This is due to the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that all members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the actions of the group, even if they did not directly commit the crime. It highlights that mere presence and actions that further the common object are sufficient for conviction.
Q: What should I do if I find myself near an unlawful assembly?
A: It’s best to avoid being near any unlawful assembly. If you are near one, leave the area immediately and inform the authorities if necessary.
Source: Nitya Nand vs. State of U.P.