2025 Supreme(SC) 1776

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Zainul – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 740 of 2014),
With
Sattar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 726 of 2014)
Decided on : 07-10-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of unlawful assembly, unless it is established that such an accused also shared its common object – A mere bystander, to whom no specific role is attributed, would not fall within ambit of Section 149 of IPC.
(2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 149 – Murder – Before a criminal court even accepts testimony of an injured eyewitness, it has to be satisfied that he is a truthful witness and had no reason to falsely implicate accused persons.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Expression “in prosecution of the common object” means that offence committed must be directly connected with common object of assembly, or that act, upon appraisal of evidence, must appear to have been done with a view to accomplish that common object – Common object can be deduced from nature of assembly, weapons carried by its members, and their conduct before, during, or after incident – Section 149 of IPC makes all members of an unlawful assembly constructively liable when an offence is committed by any member of such assembly with a view to accomplish common object of that assembly or members of assembly knew that such an offence was likely to be committed – However, such liability can be fastened only upon proof that act was done in pursuance of a common object – Once existence of a common object amongst members of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not imperative to prove that each member committed an overt act – Liability under this provision is attracted once it is certain that an individual had knowledge that offence committed was a probable consequence in furtherance of common object, thereby rendering him a “member” of unlawful assembly. (Paras 49, 50 and 51)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of unlawful assembly, unless it is established that such an accused also shared its common object – A mere bystander, to whom no specific role is attributed, would not fall within ambit of Section 149 of IPC – Prosecution has to establish, through reasonably direct or indirect circumstances, that accused persons shared a common object of unlawful assembly – Test to determine whether a person is a passive onlooker or an innocent bystander is the same as that applied to ascertain existence of a common object – Where presence of a large number of persons is established and many are implicated, prudence mandates strict adherence to this rule of caution – Where there are general allegations against a large number of persons, court must remain very careful before convicting all of them on vague or general evidence – Courts ought to look for some cogent and credible material that lends assurance – It is safe to convict only those whose presence is not only consistently established from stage of FIR, but also to whom overt acts are attributed which are in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly. (Paras 54, 55 and 61)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 149 – Murder – Common object – Life imprisonment – Testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded special status in law because injuries on the person lends credence to the fact that witness was present at scene of occurrence – Courts lend credence to testimony of an injured eyewitness – Unless there are cogent grounds for disbelieving evidence of an eyewitness due to major contradictions and discrepancies, ordinarily, such evidence should be relied upon – Oral testimony of prosecution witnesses is marred by material inconsistencies and embellishments striking at to root of matter – Before a criminal court even accepts testimony of an injured eyewitness, it has to be satisfied that he is a truthful witness and had no reason to falsely implicate accused persons – Prosecution version does not appear to stem from a truthful narration of facts – Oral testimonies of witnesses neither corroborate each other nor align with medical records – Appellants acquitted. (Paras 63, 65, 78, 82, 83 and 91)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154[Section 173 of BNSS] – FIR – FIR must faithfully reflect information furnished by informant at the very time it is presented – True test for an information to qualify as FIR lies in whether it is capable of supplying grounds for the police officer to suspect commission of a cognizable offence – Once this requirement is met, officer is bound to reduce it into writing. (Para 89)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise from common judgment and order passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 17.07.2013 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 202 of 1990, by which High Court dismissed appeal preferred by appellants herein and thereby affirmed judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court holding appellants guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order to the extent of holding appellants guilty of offences they were charged with, is set aside. Appellants are accordingly acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

Result : Appeals allowed.