Key Points: - The judgment holds that once an assembly is unlawful with a common object, it is not necessary to assign an overt act to all members for conviction under Section 149 IPC. (!) - It explains constructive liability: any member present and sharing the common object can be liable for offences committed in pursuit of that object, even if not all members directly participated in the specific act. (!) (!) - The Court reiterates that the common object can be formed at any stage and may not require prior concert; offences can fall under Section 149 if they were likely to be committed in pursuit of the common object. (!) (!) - The evidence shows the accused shared the common object to kill, loot, and commit arson, with multiple eyewitnesses identifying leadership and participation, supporting conviction under Section 149 IPC. (!) (!) (!) - The Court upheld the convictions under Section 149 IPC based on the presence and participation in the unlawful assembly with a common object, without needing every member to have a specific overt act. (!)

How to determine liability under Section 149 IPC when an unlawful assembly has a common object but not all members commit overt acts?

What is the scope of constructive liability for members of an unlawful assembly in pursuit of a common object?

What are the evidentiary requirements to convict multiple accused under Section 149 IPC without specific overt acts by each member?