Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.149 – Murder by members of an unlawful assembly – Prosecution case that five accused persons entered the house of victim in the midnight and inflicted injuries on him – Consequent to which, victim died – Trial court concluded that all the five accused were members of an unlawful assembly and had entered the house of the deceased with common object of causing death – All five were convicted u/s. 302 r/w. 149 IPC – High Court held that accused/appellants No.2 and 4 were armed with deadly weapons and they inflicted blows on the vital parts of the deceased – However, the remaining three accused/appellants were convicted with the aid of s.149 IPC and allegation against them was that they had entered the house and were armed with lathis and Ballam – High Court held that no injuries were associated with lathis and Ballam and acquitted the remaining three accused/appellants – On appeal, held: The presence of the respondents/remaining three accused 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 deceased was sufficient to attract principles of vicarious liability u/s. 149 IPC – The High Court was not justified in granting a benefit to the three accused – Therefore acquittal, as recorded by the High Court, set aside and order of conviction passed by the Trial court restored – Doctrines/Principles – Principle of vicarious liability. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. On the strength of the principles accepted and laid down in the Supreme Court cases, their liability is fully established. Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility and vicarious liability on which the very idea of charge under Section 149 IPC is founded. 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. The fact that five persons were separately armed and had entered the house of the deceased during night time is clearly indicative that each one of them was a member of that unlawful assembly, the object of which was to commit the crime with which they came to be charged in question. The High Court was not justified in granting benefit to those three accused. [Para 12] [104-F-H]
2. 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. [Para 13] [105-B]
3. 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. The testimony of the eye witnesses namely the wife and the son, who were occupants of the same house, was quite clear and cogent. [Para 14] [105-C] Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133 ; State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and others (2015) 15 SCC 77 : [2015] 11 SCR 357 – relied on. Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 181 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.