Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No. 001187–001187 – 2014 |
| Diary Number | 32811/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority clarifying constructive liability under Section 149 IPC |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established law on “common object,” narrows over-broad applications of Section 149 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that to invoke Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove that each accused shared the unlawful assembly’s common object—either by overt act or knowledge that the offence was likely in pursuit of that object. Mere presence or omnibus identification in chaotic melee cannot sustain conviction. Injured-eyewitness testimony must be consistent with medical evidence and earlier statements; material contradictions and embellishments undermine credibility. A fardbeyan recorded after other witnesses had already informed police cannot be treated as an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Mizaji & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1958) SCC OnLine SC 95; Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 174; Charan Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 4 SCC 205; Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202; Muthu Naicker v. State of T.N. (1978) 4 SCC 385; Sherey v. State of U.P. (1991) Supp (2) SCC 437; Subal Ghorai & Ors. v. State of W.B. (2013) 4 SCC 607; Abdul Syeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu & Ors. (1994) Supp (1) SCC 590; Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar (1995) 4 SCC 392 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 20.11.1988, injured eyewitness PW-20 and his brother visited their paddy field in Katihar, Bihar, where a large armed mob allegedly ambushed them. Two brothers and one villager were killed; five were injured. PW-20’s hospital statement was reduced to FIR No. 148/1988 under sections 147/148/149/342/302/324/323 IPC and section 27 Arms Act, naming 72 accused. Trial Court convicted 21; High Court upheld convictions of 12 and acquitted 7. Appeals reached Supreme Court contesting application of Section 149 IPC, reliability of eyewitness evidence, and FIR validity. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts interpreting Section 149 IPC |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, criminal trial courts, and prosecutors considering constructive liability and FIR requirements |
| Distinguishes | Over-broad applications of Section 149 (Masalti v. State of U.P.; Muthu Naicker v. State of T.N.) |
| Follows | Mizaji & Ors. v. State of U.P.; Subal Ghorai & Ors. v. State of W.B.; Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab |
| Overrules | Treatment of omnibus hospital statements as FIR when earlier police information recorded (clarifying Punati Ramulu approach) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 149 IPC convictions cannot rest on mere presence; prosecutorial burden requires proof that each accused shared the common object by overt act or knew the offence was likely.
- Rule of prudence mandates conviction only when reliable evidence from multiple witnesses consistently identifies an accused.
- Injured-eyewitness testimony must align with medical evidence; material contradictions undermine credibility.
- Hospital statements (fardbeyan) recorded after other witnesses reached police cannot substitute for FIR under Section 154 CrPC; they are Section 161 CrPC statements.
- Use this judgment to challenge omnibus or after-deliberation FIRs and over-inclusive unlawful-assembly prosecutions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Essentials of Section 149 IPC
- Minimum five-person unlawful assembly; offence by any member must be “in prosecution of” common object or known likely.
- Distinction between first limb (offence to attain common object) and second limb (knowledge of likely offence) (Mizaji).
-
Rule of Prudence in Multi-Accused Melee
- In large groups, convict only those identified in consistent testimony by at least two or more witnesses (Masalti; Muthu Naicker).
- Guard against trials devolving into conviction of mere bystanders.
-
Evaluation of Eyewitness and Injured Witness Evidence
- Beneficial weight to injured witnesses but subject to consistency with medical records and earlier statements (Balu Sudam Khalde; Abdul Syeed).
- Material contradictions and embellishments negate reasonable certainty.
-
FIR vs. Statement under Section 161 CrPC
- FIR must be first police information under Section 154 CrPC; statements recorded later, after other information was received, are Section 161 CrPC (Punati Ramulu; Ranbir Yadav).
-
Application to the Case
- Prosecution failed to prove that appellants shared the common object or committed overt acts in furtherance thereof.
- Material inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, misalignment with medical evidence, and improper FIR treatment required acquittal.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants
- The FIR was ante-timed or afterthought; delay and conflicting witness accounts show tampering.
- Section 149 IPC requires distinct proof of shared common object; mere presence or omnibus identification insufficient.
- Eyewitnesses’ statements are riddled with material omissions, contradictions, and do not align with medical evidence.
- Hospital statement (PW-20) recorded after other witnesses reached police cannot qualify as FIR under Section 154 CrPC.
Respondent (State)
- Injured eyewitnesses consistently identified specific appellants and described weapons used; medical evidence corroborates.
- Common object to forcibly dispossess settlement land is evident from pre-planning, arms carried, and conduct.
- Liability under Section 149 does not require overt act by each member; knowledge of likely offence suffices (Mizaji; Vasant @ Girish).
- Hospital statement was first information, supported by OD slip; FIR validity intact.
Factual Background
In November 1988, two brothers working on settlement land in Katihar, Bihar, were allegedly ambushed by a large armed mob opposed to their harvest. One brother and another villager were shot dead on the spot; five persons, including the complainant, sustained injuries by various weapons. The complainant’s hospital statement was treated as FIR No. 148/1988 under multiple IPC sections and the Arms Act, naming 72 accused. Trial and High Courts convicted 21 and 12 persons respectively; this appeal challenged Section 149 IPC application, eyewitness credibility, and FIR validity.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 141 IPC (Unlawful Assembly): Defines assembly of five or more persons with a common unlawful object.
- Section 149 IPC (Constructive Liability): Criminal liability of every assembly member if an offence committed by any member is in prosecution of common object or known likely to be committed in its prosecution.
- Section 154 CrPC (FIR): Mandates recording of first information on cognizable offence; subsequent statements fall under Section 161 CrPC.
- Judicial Interpretations: Emphasize strict construction of “in prosecution of” and the necessity of proving common object through overt acts or knowledge; caution against overextension to mere presence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms established law on Section 149 IPC and rule of prudence
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Clarifies FIR requirements against cases treating hospital statements as FIRs