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.

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