Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 193

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sitaram Kuchhbedia – Appellant
Versus
Vimal Rana and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1837-1838 of 2011, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1835-1836 of 2011
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh -g.a., Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Silpi S Swain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – When repeated blows are inflicted on parietal and temporal regions with lathis, resulting in bone-deep lacerations causing fractures and brain damage and culminating in coma, it cannot be said that assailants lacked intention to inflict such bodily injury as was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(2) Common object of unlawful assembly – Conduct of each person forming unlawful assembly, coupled with participation in prosecution of common object, is sufficient to fasten vicarious liability on every member of assembly for offence committed by any member of that assembly.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Common object – Conviction and sentence – Medical opinion as expressed in post mortem report attributed cause of death to coma resulting from head injury which caused extensive damage to skull bones and brain tissue – Ocular testimony of injured eye-witnesses was found consistent and reliable, establishing that deceased was assaulted by accused-respondents with lathis – High Court, while differing with trial Court on nature of offence, did not disturb finding that there existed direct causal connection between injuries inflicted by accused-respondents and death of deceased – Proved facts satisfy ingredients of Section 299 IPC and bring case within ambit of culpable homicide – Determination of intention, being a state of mind, is seldom susceptible to a rigid or mechanical formula – There is no material on record to indicate that assault was outcome of any grave and sudden provocation so as to attract any of Exceptions to Section 300 IPC – When repeated blows are inflicted on parietal and temporal regions with lathis, resulting in bone-deep lacerations causing fractures and brain damage and culminating in coma, it cannot be said that assailants lacked intention to inflict such bodily injury as was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – High Court erred in interfering with conviction recorded under Section 302 IPC by altering it to one under Section 304 Part II IPC – Judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and conviction of accused-respondents and sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by Trial Court restored. (Paras 53, 57, 58, 59, 62, 69, 70 and 71)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – Once it is established that unlawful assembly existed and accused-respondents intended to commit murder of deceased in furtherance of common object of such assembly, individual attribution of fatal injury fades into insignificance – Section 149 IPC embodies principle of vicarious liability and renders every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object – Object of provision is to ensure that criminal liability cannot be evaded on plea that specific role of particular accused could not be discerned from evidence – Conduct of each person forming unlawful assembly, coupled with participation in prosecution of common object, is sufficient to fasten vicarious liability on every member of assembly for offence committed by any member of that assembly – In such circumstances, it is immaterial as to which accused delivered fatal injury, once offence is shown to have been committed in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly. (Paras 66 and 67)
Facts of the case:
High Court, vide impugned judgment, toned down conviction recorded for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and altered the same to that punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, holding that case would fall within ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 read with 149 IPC, and 325 read with 149 IPC were, however, maintained.
Findings of Court:
The accused-respondents shall surrender within a period of eight weeks, failing which concerned trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure their custody and commit them to prison for serving the remaining sentence in terms of judgment of trial Court.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 19th July, 2010, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur¹ [Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”] in Criminal Appeal Nos. 745 and 774 of 2006, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals preferred by the accused, namely, Roop Singh, Mukesh Gujar S/o Phool Singh, Pintu @ Jitendra Kumar, Ajju @ Ajay Singh, Baddu @ Badda, Vimal Rana, Dhanraj, Kehari Singh, Parath Singh, Meharban Singh, Phool Singh, Durjan Gujar, Paggal @ Bal Kishan, Bhagwan Gujar, Prakash Gujar, Mukesh Gujar s/o Rustom Gujar, Gudda @ Meharban, Malkhan Singh, Pappu @ Pushpendra Gujar.

3. The accused persons were put to trial before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur² [Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”] in Special Case No. 51 of 2004. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 7th April, 2006, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code³ [For short ‘IPC’] and Sections 323, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and were sentenced in the terms set out below:

Sections	Sentence	Penalty/Fine	Sentence in default of payment fine
Section 148 IPC	Two Years RI	Rs. 1,000/-	Two months RI
Section 323 r/w 149 IPC	One Year RI	Rs. 500/-	One month RI
Section 325 r/w 149 IPC	Two Years	RI	Rs. 1,000/-
Section 302 r/w 149 IPC	Rigorous Imprisonment for Life	Rs. 2,000/-	Four months RI

4. In appeal, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, toned down the conviction recorded for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and altered the same to that punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, holding that the case would fall within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 read with 149 IPC, and 325 read with 149 IPC were, however, maintained.

5. Consequent upon the toning down of the offence from one punishable under Section 302 IPC, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court was set aside and the accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC.

Factual Background

6. Succinctly stated, the facts germane for adjudication of the present appeals are set out herein-below.

7. A Dehati Nalishi (Exh.P/2) was lodged by the informant Late Shri Sitaram Kuchhbedia (PW-1)⁴ [Hereinafter, referred to as the “informant-appellant”. The informant-appellant has since expired and stands substituted through his legal heir Shri Dhanraj Gangapri (vide Interlocutory Application No. 185690 of 2025)] on 11th July, 2003 at about 9:00 p.m. at the Government Hospital, Gadarwada, to Shri B.K. Pathak (PW-11), SHO, Police Station Paloha Bada.

8. It was inter alia alleged in the Dehati Nalishi (Exh.P/8), that at about 08:00 p.m. on the same day, while he was at Gadarwada, the informant-appellant received information that his brother Bhaggu @ Bhag Chand, who had gone to Bhatera Ghat for bathing in the river Narmada and was returning in a Jeep, had been assaulted by persons belonging to the Gujar community of village Khairi. Upon receiving this information, the informant-appellant immediately proceeded towards the place of occurrence in his Sumo vehicle along with Kanchan (driver), Sanju Chouksey, and Ganesh Yadav. On the way, near the agricultural field of Ekant Jain, he noticed a mini bus belonging to Banti Dube, in which the Bhaggu @ Bhag Chand was being taken to Gadarwada. Gudda Maharaj and Guddu Patel, were a