1. Unlawful assembly formed to forcibly dispossess land occupants — assault resulting in death and injuries — convictions under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 IPC and Arms Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 192
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th October, 1959.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Shambhu Nath Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
M/s. H. J. Umrigar and D. P. Singh, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. B. K. P. Sinha and R. C. Prasad, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.K.P.SINHA, D.P.Singh, H.J.Umrigar, R.C.Prasad
B.K.P.SINHA, D.P.Singh, H.J.Umrigar, R.C.Prasad
Members of an unlawful assembly can be vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for a minor offence (e.g., grievous hurt) even if the principal offender is convicted of a more serious offence (e.g., murder), provided the minor offence was in prosecution of the common object.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 149, 302 and 326 - Arms Act - Sections 19(E) and 19(F) - Vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly - Section 149 declares vicarious liability for acts done in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly or for offences which the members knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object (Para 6) - Members of an unlawful assembly may have a community of object up to a certain point, beyond which they may differ, and the knowledge of what is likely to be committed may vary among members (Para 6) - A conviction for a minor offence, such as causing grievous hurt under Section 326 read with Section 149, is maintainable even if a member of the assembly commits a more serious offence like murder under Section 302, provided the common object was to cause grievous hurt (Paras 7, 14, 15).
(B) Criminal Appeal - Scope of review - Appellate court does not normally enter upon a review of the evidence on which the conclusions of the courts below are founded unless the trial is vitiated by illegality, irregularity of procedure, violation of principles of natural justice, or results in gross miscarriage of justice (Para 4).
Facts of the case:
A group of persons formed an unlawful assembly and attacked a tenant on his land to forcibly dispossess him. One member of the assembly fired shots, resulting in the death of the tenant and his son. Other members were armed with various weapons. The trial court convicted the principal offender of murder and other members of the assembly for causing grievous hurt read with the provision for vicarious liability.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit assault and cause grievous hurt. While the other members were not held responsible for the death caused by the principal offender, they were held vicariously liable for the common object of causing grievous hurt.
Issues: Whether the conviction of members of an unlawful assembly for a minor offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 can be sustained when the principal offender is convicted of a more serious offence under Section 302, and no member is found guilty of the minor offence as a substantive crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under Section 149, members of an unlawful assembly are not necessarily guilty of the same offence as the principal offender. Since murder is an aggravated form of grievous hurt, a conviction for the minor offence is maintainable if the common object was to cause grievous hurt, regardless of whether the principal offender's act escalated to murder.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether members of an unlawful assembly can be convicted of a minor offence under Section 326/149 IPC when the principal offender is convicted of murder under Section 302. (Para 5 )
3. Murder is an aggravated form of grievous hurt — vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC allows conviction for a minor offence even if an aggravated offence is committed. (Para 6 , 7 , 14 , 15 )
4. Members of an unlawful assembly may be convicted of a minor offence under Section 149 IPC even if the principal offender is convicted of a more aggravated offence. (Para 7 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed; convictions under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code sustained. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Can members of an unlawful assembly be convicted of a minor offence if the principal offender committed a more serious crime?
Yes. Section 149 IPC allows conviction for a minor offence, such as causing grievous hurt, even if an aggravated offence, such as murder, was committed, provided the minor offence was in prosecution of the common object. (Para 7 , 14 )
7. Does the constructive offence under Section 149 IPC have to be identical to the offence committed by the principal offender?
No. A member of an assembly is not necessarily guilty of the same offence as the principal offender; liability depends on the common object and what the member knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. How is vicarious liability determined under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
Liability arises if an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, or if the offence was one which the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. (Para 6 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : This is an appeal by special leave. Before the Additional Judicial Commissioner Chotanagpur at Daltongunj, fourteen persons were put up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 19 (E) and 19 (F) of the Arms Act. The Additional Judicial Commissioner convicted nine out of the fourteen persons. He convicted the 1st accused Shambhu Nath Singh for the offence under S. 302 and for offences under Ss. 302 read with S. 149 and S. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and 19 (F) of the Arms Act. For the offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the 1st accused Shambhu Nath Singh was sentenced to transportation for life; for the other offences no separate sentences were passed. The learned Judge convicted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for offences under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them for the offence under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 149 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years. For the offence under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code, he did not impose a separate sentence. He convicted accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 for offence under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. He also convicted the 7th accused for an offence under Sec. 19(E) of the Arms Act. The learned Judge sentenced accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 for the offence under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and did not pass any sentence under Sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Sec. 19 (E) of the Arms Act, the 7th accused was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were acquitted. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the accused who were convicted appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. In appeal, the convictions of these accused persons were confirmed subject to a modification regarding the order of conviction of the 7th accused for the offence under Sec. 19 (E) of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case may briefly be set out. Of plot No. 493 in Khata No. 27 of the village Gulabjhari, one Baran Kahar was a tenant. This land was originally held on adh batai, but the rent was commuted to cash rent under an order passed by the Commutation Officer in exercise of authority under Sec. 61 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. On 2nd July, 1954 at about 4 P.M. Baran Kahar and his sons Nanhu Kahar and Ramedni Kahar were ploughing and levelling the land and were sowing paddy. At that time, a crowd of persons including the fourteen accused arrived on the scene. Shambhu Nath Singh accused No. 1 was armed with a gun and the other accused were carrying weapons such as bhallas, garasas and lathis. Apprehending an assault, Ramdeni Kahar and Mst. Sukri son and wife respectively of Baran Kahar implored the accused nor to assault Baran Kahar, but the accused paid no heed to their intercession. Shambhu Nath Singh fired several shots causing injuries to Baran Kahar and killing him on the spot. Nanhu Kaher also received gun shot injuries which resulted in his death. Ramdeni Kahar and Mst. Sukri also received injuries. After the party of the accused left the field, Ramdeni Kahar gave information at the Police Station Chhatarpur about the assault made upon Baran Kahar and Nanhu Kahar. An offence was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police and investigation was commenced. The fourteen accused were arrested in the course of the investigation and put up before the Magistrate 1st Class Daltonguni on a charge sheet for offences under Secs. 147, 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 19 (E) and 19 (F) of the Arms Act. The Magistrate committed these accused to the Court of Session for trial. At the trial, accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 14 were convicted and the remaining accused were acquitted.
3. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner held that on the day of the inci
