S. 149 IPC | Once Unlawful Assembly Established, Individual Attribution Of Fatal Injury Irrelevant: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that once an unlawful assembly is established, the failure to identify the specific individual who inflicted the fatal injury is irrelevant, and every person forming a part of an unlawful assembly becomes vicariously liable.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, which had reduced the punishment of the convicts in an unlawful assembly case from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC), merely because the prosecution failed to identify the convict who has inflicted deadly injury on the deceased.

“Once it is established that an unlawful assembly existed and the accused-respondents intended to commit murder…in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, the individual attribution of the fatal injury fades into insignificance. It is trite law that Section 149 IPC embodies the principle of vicarious liability and renders every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.”, the court observed.

“Conduct of each person forming the unlawful assembly, coupled with participation in prosecution of the common object, is sufficient to fasten vicarious liability on every member of the assembly for the offence committed by any member of that assembly.”, the court added.

The case dates back to July 11, 2003, when the deceased, was returning in a mini bus. The accused persons, allegedly obstructed the road by placing tube-well pipes across the passage. When the vehicle stopped, the accused armed with lathis emerged and launched a concerted attack, leading to a death of one Bhaggu @ Bhag Chand.

The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, and 302/149 IPC, awarding life imprisonment. However, the High Court, while affirming the existence of an unlawful assembly, altered the murder conviction on the ground that death resulted from a "single injury" and the prosecution had failed to identify which specific accused inflicted the fatal blow.

The High Court held that the common object could not be inferred as murder and converted the offence to one under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing the sentence to six years rigorous imprisonment, prompting the complainants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed that the High Court had erred in altering the punishment, despite noting the existence of an unlawful assembly. The Court stated that once the unlawful assembly was established, it became irrelevant to determine who caused the fatal injury, as each accused person forming part of the unlawful assembly would be held liable for the act of a single person.

“While affirming the invocation of Section 149 IPC, it went on to record that the prosecution could not prove the identity of the 54 assailant who caused the fatal injury to the deceased Bhaggu. This approach runs contrary to the very principle of vicarious liability embodied in Section 149 IPC. The conclusion so drawn by the High Court is perverse without any justifiable foundation, and hence, the same cannot be sustained.”, the court observed, pointing out that “…it is immaterial as to which accused delivered the fatal injury, once the offence is shown to have been committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the accused persons were directed to surrender within 8 weeks to suffer the remaining sentence imposed by the trial court.

Headnote

Culpable Homicide vs. Murder — Section 299, 300 Clause (3), and 304 Part II IPC — Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment which had toned down the conviction of 19 accused persons from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II/149 IPC - held that when an unlawful assembly waylays a victim with premeditation, uses lathis to inflict 29 injuries (including four bone-deep head fractures), and acts out of caste-based retaliation, the intention to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is clearly established.

Vicarious Liability (Section 149 IPC) — Individual Attribution — Once the existence of an unlawful assembly and a common object to commit murder is established, the individual attribution of the fatal blow becomes inconsequential - Section 149 IPC fastens constructive liability on every member of the assembly, regardless of who delivered the "crucial act" or fatal injury - The High Court's reasoning that all accused could not be convicted under Section 302 because the specific assailant who caused the fatal head injury was unidentified was held to be "perverse" and "self-contradictory" as it ignored the fundamental principle of vicarious liability.

Admissibility of Post-Mortem Report — Section 294 CrPC — The non-examination of the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem is not fatal to the prosecution if the defense admits the genuineness of the report under Section 294 CrPC - Once admitted, the report serves as substantive evidence of the correctness of its contents - Intention — Intention is a state of mind gathered from the cumulative effect of circumstances: nature of weapons, body parts targeted, force used, premeditation, and prior enmity - Even if weapons like lathis are used, their lethality is determined by the manner of use and the multiplicity of injuries on vital parts – Appeals allowed. [Relied on Daya Nand v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 717; Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444; Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722; Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) 7 SCC 743; Paras 41-45, 61-67, 69, 70]

Cause Title: SITARAM KUCHHBEDIA VERSUS VIMAL RANA AND OTHERS (and connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Click here to download judgment

Appearances:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Adv. Ms. Divya Garg, Adv. Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Ms. Mahima Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Jain, Adv. Ms. Indu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Ms. Yasha Goyal, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Dr Surat Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Vivek Nagar, Adv. Mr. Tejaswin Suri, Adv. Mr. S. K. Gangele, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ritu Gangele, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv. Mr. Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR