Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-001755-001755 – 2011 |
| Diary Number | 8624/2011 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law on appellate interference and vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (IPC Sections 302, 307, 149; CrPC Section 379; Supreme Court Act Section 2(a)) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only if the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly perverse or unreasonable. Section 149 IPC vicariously binds every member of an unlawful assembly sharing the common object, even if they did not deliver the fatal blow. Consistent and corroborated ocular testimony, supported by medical evidence, satisfied proof of a shared design. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A group of six persons armed with knives and a “sattur” reached the crime scene on two motorcycles, removed weapons, surrounded a jeep carrying the deceased and other victims, and launched a coordinated assault. The deceased died on the spot; two eyewitnesses sustained grievous injuries; one escaped. The trial court acquitted facilitators; the High Court reversed under S.149 IPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Appellate courts may reappraise and overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s conclusions are manifestly perverse or unreasonable.
- Driving or facilitating armed assailants to a crime scene, with awareness of weapons, constitutes active participation under Section 149 IPC.
- Members who do not themselves strike the fatal blow can still be convicted for murder if they shared the common unlawful objective.
- Concurrence of ocular testimony and medical evidence is critical to establish the nature and timing of injuries and the collective design.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The threshold for appellate interference with an acquittal is high: only warranted if the trial court’s view is not reasonably sustainable (Chandrappa).
- The eyewitness depositions were natural, coherent, mutually corroborative, and identified all accused arriving armed on motorcycles.
- Postmortem and hospital records confirmed multiple sharp‐weapon injuries sufficient in ordinary course to cause death or grievous harm.
- Section 149 IPC imposes vicarious liability on every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of the common object or known to be likely in furtherance thereof (Masalti; Lalji).
- Facilitators who drove co-assailants armed with knives and “sattur,” prevented escape, and aided in the coordinated assault shared the requisite common intention and are liable for murder under Sections 302/307 read with Section 149.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Accused Nos. 3 & 4)
- Section 149 IPC was not attracted: no proof of common object among at least five members.
- High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning a plausible acquittal (Murugesan; Siju Kurian).
- Contradictions and omissions in eyewitness accounts undermine the prosecution’s case.
- No weapon recovery or direct assault attributable to them.
Petitioner (Accused No. 6)
- No evidence of shared intent to commit murder; he is only alleged to have caused hurt.
- The incident was sudden and unpremeditated; material omissions in FIR and testimony.
- Procedural flaws in arrest and identification parade rendered identification unreliable (Shivaji Sahabrao Bobde).
- Benefit of doubt must be extended in cases of possible dual interpretation (Chellappa; M.C. Ali).
Respondent (State)
- Convictions based on consistent and credible ocular evidence of injured witnesses corroborated by medical reports.
- Section 149 IPC vicarious liability applies once an unlawful assembly and common object are established (Masalti; Lalji).
- Facilitating the commission of the crime by transporting armed assailants and preventing escape suffices for liability.
Factual Background
In April 1999, during a wedding procession near Navi Ali, a group of six persons on two motorcycles armed with knives and a “sattur” surrounded a jeep carrying the eventual deceased and other passengers. They forcibly removed the victims, carried out a coordinated assault—killing one person on the spot and grievously injuring two eyewitnesses—before fleeing. The trial court acquitted three alleged facilitators; the High Court reversed, convicting all under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Appeals followed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 149 IPC: once an unlawful assembly and its common object are proved, every participating member is criminally liable for offences committed in furtherance or known likely to be committed, without need to prove individual overt acts.
- Section 379 CrPC and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court Act confer appellate jurisdiction to challenge High Court judgments overturning acquittals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed