1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, following a trial for offence under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1043
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : S.P.Kurdukar
Wakil Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 523 of 1991
Date of Decision : 7/31/97
Important Points
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is a distinct offence. An accused tried for constructive liability under Section 149 cannot be convicted for abetment under Section 109 without a specific charge being framed, as the roles of perpetrator and abettor are distinct.
Subject
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 109, 149 and 302 - Conviction for abetment - Accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 for being a member of an unlawful assembly - High Court convicted accused under Section 302 read with Section 109 - No charge framed under Section 109 - Section 109 is by itself a distinct offence, though punishable in the context of other offences - Roles of perpetrator and abettor are distinct - Convicting an accused for abetment when they faced trial for constructive liability without a specific charge of abetment causes serious prejudice to the defence and constitutes a legal flaw. (Paras 1 and 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, along with others, was originally charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the trial court convicted all accused, the High Court in appeal acquitted several persons but convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, despite no charge being framed against the appellant under Section 109.
Findings of Court:
The conviction under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be substituted for a trial conducted under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as abetment is a distinct offence. Such a substitution leads to a miscarriage of justice and prejudices the accused's ability to project their defence.
Issues: Whether an accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of a specific charge under Section 109.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is a distinct offence, and the roles of the perpetrator and abettor are separate. A person tried for being a member of an unlawful assembly cannot be convicted for abetment without a corresponding charge, as it would cause significant prejudice to the defence.
Result: Appeal allowed. The convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and he is set at liberty.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, along with others, was originally charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. While the trial court convicted all accused, the High Court in appeal acquitted several persons but convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, despite no charge being framed against the appellant under Section 109.
Findings of Court:
The conviction under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be substituted for a trial conducted under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as abetment is a distinct offence. Such a substitution leads to a miscarriage of justice and prejudices the accused's ability to project their defence.
Issues: Whether an accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of a specific charge under Section 109.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is a distinct offence, and the roles of the perpetrator and abettor are separate. A person tried for being a member of an unlawful assembly cannot be convicted for abetment without a corresponding charge, as it would cause significant prejudice to the defence.
Result: Appeal allowed. The convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and he is set at liberty.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an accused charged with constructive liability under Section 149, Indian Penal Code, can be substitutedly convicted for abetment under Section 109, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 )
3. Section 109, Indian Penal Code, is a distinct offence; substituting a conviction for abetment without a corresponding charge causes serious prejudice to the accused's defence. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. A person cannot be convicted under Section 109, Indian Penal Code, if they were tried for a different offence and no charge of abetment was framed. (Para 1 , 2 )
5. Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside, and the appellant set at liberty. (Para 3 )
6. Is Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code considered a distinct offence?
Yes, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is by itself a distinct offence, although it is punishable in the context of other offences. (Para 1 , 2 )
7. Can an accused be convicted under Section 109 IPC if they were tried for membership in an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC without a specific charge of abetment?
No. Because Section 109 is a distinct offence and the roles of perpetrator and abettor are different, a substitute conviction under Section 109 without a framed charge causes serious prejudice to the defence. (Para 1 , 2 )
(1) THIS appeal would have to be allowed on the strength of the decision of this COUrt in Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State of Kerala , (1994) 6 SCC 535 : (1994 AIR SCW 3989 : AIR 1995 SC 4 : 1995 Cri LJ 502), wherein the following statement of law has been made: "Section 109,Indian Penal Code is by itself an offence though punishable in the context of other offences. A-4 suffered a trial for substantive offences under the Indian Penal Code and Abkari Act. When his direct involvement in these crimes can not be established, it is difficult to uphold the view of the High COUrt that he COUld lopsidedly be taken to have answered the charge of abetment and convicted on that basis. There would, as is plain, be serious miscarriage of justice to the accused in causing great prejudice to his defence. The roles of the perpetrator and abettor of the crime are distinct, standing apart from each other."
(2) OUT of the two appellants before us, Guru Charan Yadav, the main accused has since died. His appeal therefore abates and is disposed of as such. The other Wakil Yadav was originally charged along with 6 others for offence under Section 302/149,Indian Penal Code and for some lesser offences as part of the same constructive liability. The COUrt of Session convicted all the 7 accused for the offences charged. The High COUrt in appeal acquitted 5 persons, convicting Guru Charan Yadav substantively for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code sentencing him to life imprisonment (whose appeal has abated) and convicting Wakil Yadav, appellant, for offence under Section 302 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code It is undisputed that no charge was framed against the appellant with the aid of Section 109, Indian Penal Code This COUrts view above stated is that Section 109, Indian Penal Code is a distinct offence. The afore extracted statement of law is clear on the point. The appellant having faced trial for being a member of an unlawful assembly which achieved the common object of killing the deceased, COUld in no event be substitutedly convicted for offence under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 109,Indian Penal Code There was obviously thus not only a legal flaw but also a great prejudice to the appellant in projecting his defence. He, on such error committed by the High COUrt, has rightly earned his acquittal. There is no cross appeal by the State for restoration of the status quo ante.
(3) FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and he is set at liberty.
