Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 302/149 IPC in Unlawful Assembly Case: Surendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2023) INSC 354 (11 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 April 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 354
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with the aid of Section 149 IPC, even if they did not inflict the fatal blow, but were part of an unlawful assembly? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the application of Section 149 IPC in cases involving unlawful assemblies. This judgment examines the extent of criminal liability when multiple individuals are involved in a crime, focusing on the concept of common object and the implications for those who are part of an unlawful assembly. The bench comprised of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

On November 28, 2010, an incident occurred where Narendra Singh was filling water from a hand pump. Accused individuals Bhupendra Singh, Vijendra Singh, Bhawani Singh, Sangeeta, and Gulab Kanwar allegedly assaulted Narendra Singh with lathis. During the assault, both Narendra Singh and Bhawani Singh lost consciousness and were taken to the hospital. Bhawani Singh later died due to his injuries.

Initially, the police filed a First Information Report (FIR) on December 1, 2010, against all five individuals. However, the charge sheet was filed only against Bhupendra Singh and Vijendra Singh. The other three were later added as accused after an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was allowed by the Trial Court on the directions of the High Court. The trial against the accused Vijendra Singh was separated as the other three accused absconded. The Trial Court convicted Vijendra Singh under Sections 147, 323, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Vijendra Singh for offences under Sections 147, 323, and 302/149 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Vijendra Singh appealed to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, which partly allowed the appeal. The High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC, stating that Section 149 IPC was not applicable. However, the High Court convicted him for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, considering his individual act and the fact that the fatal blow was given by Bhupendra Singh, who had died during the trial. The original complainant, Surendra Singh, then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 149 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.”

This section essentially deals with the concept of constructive or vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly. It stipulates that if a crime is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the assembly’s common object, or if the members knew such an offense was likely to be committed, then every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense. An unlawful assembly is defined under Section 141 of the IPC as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Surendra Singh):

• The High Court erred in holding that Section 149 IPC was not applicable because the initial charge sheet was only against two accused. The FIR named five accused persons, and all five were eventually tried, albeit separately.
• The High Court failed to appreciate that the FIR specifically named five accused persons, and the other three were added later due to an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, all five individuals formed an unlawful assembly, making Section 149 IPC applicable.
• The appellant relied on the decisions in Bharwad Mepa Dana & Anr. Vs. State of Bombay 1960 (2) SCR 172 and Mizaji and Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. (1959) Supp. (1) SCR 940 to support their argument on the applicability of Section 149 IPC.

Respondent’s Arguments (Vijendra Singh):

• Relying on the decision in Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and others, (2012) 3 SCC 221, the respondent argued that mere presence or participation in the commission of an offence is not sufficient to attract Section 149 IPC. It must be proven that the accused knew that one of them was likely to commit murder in furtherance of the common object.
• The respondent argued that there was a delay of 3 ½ days in lodging the FIR, the injury on the neck was not established, and there were material contradictions in the injuries caused by the accused persons.
• Even though the respondent did not appeal against the conviction under Section 323 IPC, he argued that in an appeal preferred by the State against acquittal, the accused can submit that he could not have been convicted for other offences.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a dedicated section but addressed the following key issues:

• Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302/149 IPC.
• Whether Section 149 IPC is applicable when the initial charge sheet was filed against only two accused, and the remaining accused were added later.
• Whether the accused could be convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, even if the fatal blow was inflicted by another member of the unlawful assembly.
• Whether the accused could be convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC, given the arguments against the injuries and the delay in filing the FIR.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Bharwad Mepa Dana & Anr. Vs. State of Bombay 1960 (2) SCR 172* to emphasize that the identity of all members of an unlawful assembly is not necessary for conviction under Section 149 IPC.
• The Supreme Court followed Mizaji and Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. (1959) Supp. (1) SCR 940* to distinguish between the two parts of Section 149 IPC, stating that the present case falls under the first part.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and others, (2012) 3 SCC 221*, stating that it dealt with the second part of Section 149 IPC, which is not applicable in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that five individuals were named in the FIR and were part of the unlawful assembly. The court emphasized that even if the fatal blow was inflicted by one member, all members of the unlawful assembly are liable under Section 302/149 IPC if the offence was committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly.

The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in focusing on the initial charge sheet, which only included two accused. The Court emphasized that the subsequent inclusion of the remaining accused, based on the directions of the High Court, meant that all five were part of the unlawful assembly. The Court also found the explanations for the delay in lodging the FIR and the evidence of injuries to be satisfactory, thus rejecting the respondent’s arguments on these points.

The court’s reasoning was based on a blend of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual aspect, which includes the number of individuals involved, the timing of the incident, and the nature of the injuries, played a significant role in the court’s decision. The legal aspect involved the interpretation of Section 149 of the IPC and its application to the facts of the case.

The Court rejected the argument that only the person who inflicted the fatal blow could be held liable under Section 302 IPC. The court emphasized the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, where all members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the actions of the group.

The Court stated that the present case falls under the first part of Section 149 IPC. The court quoted Mizaji and Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. (1959) Supp. (1) SCR 940, observing:

“The first part of the section means that the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. It is not necessary that there should be a preconcert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly as to the common object; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them.”

The Court also stated:

“In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under s. 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed.”

The Court further stated:

“In every case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence committed falls within the first part of s. 149 as explained above or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly know to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part.”

The court found that the accused was part of an unlawful assembly and that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, thus making him liable under Section 302/149 IPC.

Key Takeaways

• Unlawful Assembly Liability: If you are part of an unlawful assembly, you can be held responsible for the actions of the group, even if you did not directly commit the crime.
• Common Object: If a crime is committed in furtherance of the common object of an unlawful assembly, all members can be held liable.
• First Part of Section 149 IPC: The offense must be committed with a view to accomplish the common object.
• Importance of FIR: The FIR is a crucial document, and the court will consider all named individuals as part of the unlawful assembly.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent no.2 – accused to surrender before the concerned authority/court to undergo the remaining sentence of life imprisonment within a period of three weeks from the date of the judgment. Failure to do so would result in immediate custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that all members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for an offense committed in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly commit the act. This judgment reinforces the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and clarifies the distinction between the first and second parts of Section 149 IPC, emphasizing that the present case falls under the first part.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Surendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reinforces the legal principle that all members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the assembly’s common object. The Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC, emphasizing the importance of the FIR and the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the legal consequences of participating in an unlawful assembly.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Unlawful Assembly
• Vicarious Liability
• Criminal Law
• Indian Penal Code
• Supreme Court Judgments

FAQ

Q: What is an unlawful assembly?

A: An unlawful assembly is a gathering of five or more people with a common objective that is considered illegal under the law.

Q: What is Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Section 149 IPC deals with the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly. It states that if a crime is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.

Q: Can I be held responsible for a crime committed by someone else if I am part of an unlawful assembly?

A: Yes, if the crime is committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, every member can be held liable, even if they did not directly commit the crime.

Q: What is the difference between the first and second parts of Section 149 IPC?

A: The first part of Section 149 IPC applies when the offense is committed with a view to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly. The second part applies when members of the assembly knew that such an offense was likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in Surendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC, holding that all members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the assembly’s common object.