Supreme Court Upholds Vicarious Liability in Murder Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors. (2019)

Date of the Judgment: November 19, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1325

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a person be held guilty of murder even if they did not directly cause the death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an unlawful assembly, clarifying the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court examined whether individuals present at the scene of a crime, but not directly involved in inflicting fatal injuries, could be held equally responsible for the murder. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

On the night of May 23, 2005, at approximately 2:00 AM, Khushiram, the uncle of the deceased Balaprasad Pathak’s son, along with four other individuals, entered Balaprasad’s house. Khushiram and Himmu @ Hemchand were armed with axes, Devendra carried a Ballam, and Killu @ Kailash and Kailash Nayak were armed with lathis. Khushiram and Himmu inflicted fatal axe injuries on Balaprasad, who died at the scene. The incident was reported by Rameshwar Pathak (PW-5), a relative of the deceased.

The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of Prabha Rani (PW3), the deceased’s wife; Devendra Kumar (PW4), the deceased’s son; and Rameshwar Pathak (PW5). Medical evidence was provided by Dr. R.K. Bhardwaj (PW2), who conducted the post-mortem and confirmed the cause of death as the inflicted injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all five accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The accused then filed appeals in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Criminal Appeal No. 2676 of 2008 was filed by four accused, while Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2009 was filed by Kailash Nayak.

The High Court upheld the conviction of Himmu @ Hemchand and Khushiram, who were armed with axes and inflicted the fatal injuries. However, it acquitted Killu @ Kailash, Devendra, and Kailash Nayak, who were armed with a Ballam and lathis, respectively, stating there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal of these three accused.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 establishes that if an offense is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the assembly’s common objective, or if the members knew such an offense was likely to be committed, every member of that assembly is guilty of the offense. The key elements for establishing liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are:

• ✓ The existence of an unlawful assembly.
• ✓ The commission of an offense by a member of that assembly.
• ✓ The offense must be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, or be such that the members knew it was likely to be committed.

Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons with a common object to commit any of the acts mentioned in the provision.

Arguments

State of Madhya Pradesh (Appellant):

• ✓ The State argued that all five accused were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing harm to the deceased.
• ✓ It was submitted that the presence of the respondents at the scene, armed with weapons, clearly indicated their participation in the unlawful assembly.
• ✓ The State contended that under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, all members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for the acts of other members if the offense is committed in furtherance of the common object or is likely to be committed.
• ✓ The State relied on the fact that the incident occurred in the dead of night inside the deceased’s house, not in a public place, which indicated a pre-planned attack.
• ✓ The State emphasized that the High Court erred in acquitting the three accused based on the fact that they did not inflict the fatal blows, as the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies in this case.

Accused (Respondents):

• ✓ The respondents argued that they did not inflict any injuries on the deceased and therefore, should not be held liable for murder.
• ✓ They contended that their mere presence at the scene, armed with lathis and a Ballam, was not sufficient to establish their guilt under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ It was submitted that the High Court rightly acquitted them as there was no evidence to show that they shared the common object of committing the murder.
• ✓ The respondents argued that the prosecution failed to prove that they had any active participation in the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents, considering the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, given that they were members of an unlawful assembly.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ Masalti vs. State of U.P. [(1964) 8 SCR 133]: The Court used this case to clarify that an overt act is not always necessary to establish membership of an unlawful assembly and to establish the principle of vicarious liability.
• ✓ Baladin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1956 SC 181]: The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that it should not be interpreted as requiring an overt act for a person to be considered a member of an unlawful assembly.
• ✓ State of Maharashtra vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and others [(2015) 15 SCC 77]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that membership of an unlawful assembly is sufficient to hold members vicariously liable.
• ✓ State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73]: The Court used this case to emphasize that once membership of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove any specific overt act by each accused.
• ✓ Amerika Rai v. State of Bihar [(2011) 4 SCC 677]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that presence in an unlawful assembly with an active mind to achieve the common object makes a person vicariously liable.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order of acquittal for Killu @ Kailash, Devendra, and Kailash Nayak. It restored the Trial Court’s conviction, holding them guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that the presence of all five accused, armed, at the scene of the crime, established their membership in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing harm to the deceased. The Court stated that the High Court was not justified in entertaining a doubt that the respondents were merely named along with other accused persons.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• ✓ Presence at the Scene: The fact that all five accused were present at the scene of the crime, inside the deceased’s house during the dead of night, was a significant factor.
• ✓ Armed Presence: Each of the accused was armed, indicating a pre-planned and coordinated attack.
• ✓ Unlawful Assembly: The Court determined that the five accused constituted an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing harm to the deceased.
• ✓ Vicarious Liability: The Court emphasized the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which holds all members of an unlawful assembly responsible for the actions of others in furtherance of the common object.
• ✓ Testimonies of Eye Witnesses: The Court relied on the clear and cogent testimonies of the wife and son of the deceased who were occupants of the same house.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the three accused did not inflict the fatal blows, but rejected it, emphasizing that the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes all members of an unlawful assembly responsible for the actions of others in furtherance of the common object. The Court found that the presence of the respondents, armed, at the scene of the crime, established their membership in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing harm to the deceased. The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations as the facts and the law were clear.

The Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents and restored the Trial Court’s conviction. The decision was based on the clear application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the evidence presented.

“The presence of the respondents in the house of the deceased; the fact that they were armed; the fact that all of them had entered the house around midnight and further fact that two out of those five accused used their deadly weapons to cause the death of the deceased was sufficient to attract the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.”

“The High Court was not justified in entertaining a doubt that it could not be ruled out that the respondents were merely named along with the other accused persons. There was absolutely no room for such doubt.”

“For the application of the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC what is material to establish is that the persons concerned were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit a particular crime.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Membership in an unlawful assembly is sufficient to establish vicarious liability for offenses committed by other members.
• ✓ It is not necessary for each member of an unlawful assembly to commit an overt act for them to be held liable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• ✓ The common object of the unlawful assembly is a key factor in determining vicarious liability.
• ✓ The presence of an individual at the scene of a crime, armed, can be considered evidence of their membership in an unlawful assembly.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the principle that those who participate in unlawful assemblies will be held accountable for the actions of other members.

This judgment clarifies the scope of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and reinforces the principle that all members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the actions of others in furtherance of the common object. It is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving unlawful assemblies, ensuring that those who participate in such assemblies are held accountable for the crimes committed by their fellow members.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender within three weeks, failing which the concerned police were to immediately arrest them and send them to custody to undergo the sentence imposed upon them. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Police Station for immediate compliance.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that all members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for the acts of other members if the offense is committed in furtherance of the common object or is likely to be committed, as per Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assemblies and does not introduce any new legal principles. It clarifies the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in cases where some members of an unlawful assembly do not directly inflict the fatal injuries.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Killu @ Kailash & Ors. reinforces the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that all members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the acts of others if the offense is committed in furtherance of the common object or is likely to be committed. The judgment overturned the High Court’s acquittal of three accused and restored the Trial Court’s conviction, emphasizing that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, especially when armed and at the scene of a crime, is sufficient to establish guilt. This ruling underscores the importance of accountability for those who participate in unlawful assemblies.