SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Mahendra Rai @ Harendra Narain Singh And Ors. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 563-564 of 2020
Decided On : 26-05-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 436/149, 147, 148, 379, 323 and 324 – Murder of five persons and severe injuries to several others in mob violence – Life imprisonment – High Court has meticulously summarized role of each accused person and identified those who ignited straw, those who set house on fire, those who chased fleeing victims and those who inflicted fatal blows upon deceased persons – Findings recorded by High Court clearly establish that accused persons constituted unlawful assembly, were armed with deadly weapons and acted in furtherance of their common object of setting house ablaze and causing death of members of a family – Once common object of unlawful assembly stands established, every member thereof becomes vicariously liable for acts committed in prosecution of such common object – Liability contemplated under Section 149 IPC squarely stands attracted in facts of present case – Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt ingredients of offences charged against appellants – Concurrent findings recorded by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court are based upon proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 22 to 31)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of common final judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in Government Appeal(DB)No.56/1989 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.267/1989, whereby High Court affirmed conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court against appellants in connection with gruesome incident of mass violence which took place on 29.03.1983.
Findings of Court:
Surviving accused persons, except those who have been granted the benefit of juvenility by this Court or Courts below, are directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial Court concerned and serve the remaining part of their sentence. Their bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the common final judgment and order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Government Appeal(DB)No.56/1989 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.267/1989, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court against the appellants in connection with a gruesome incident of mass violence which took place on 29.03.1983 in Village Jamalpur Kodai, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
2. Allegedly, a long-standing village rivalry culminated in a grave incident in which a mob consisting of about 58 accused persons set on fire the residential house of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary of Village Jamalpur Kodai, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur, resulting in the brutal murder of five members of his immediate family/village and causing severe injuries to several others. The incident was reported to the police, leading to registration of Gaighat P.S. Case No. 38 of 1983. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheets were laid and the accused persons were sent up for trial.
3. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 436, 302/149, 324/34, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Jagannath Ravidas, the then Circle Officer, was separately charged under Sections 302/109, 436/109, 379/109, 324/109 and 323/109 IPC on the allegation that he had actively abetted the commission of the offences.
4. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, discloses that the genesis of the occurrence lay in an earlier dispute relating to a pumping set and refusal by the prosecution side to withdraw a criminal case concerning the alleged loot of a khesari crop. On the date of occurrence, which coincided with the festival of Holi, a large mob armed with deadly weapons including lathi, bhala, garasa and farsa surrounded the house of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary.
5. It is alleged that at the relevant time Mahanth Indradeo Jyoti, one of the deceased, was attempting to defend the inmates of the house with his licensed gun and revolver. The prosecution further alleges that Jagannath Ravidas, the then Circle Officer, arrived at the place of occurrence, forcibly seized the licensed firearm and revolver from the deceased, displayed the same before the mob and thereby emboldened the assailants to proceed with the attack.
6. Immediately thereafter, the mob allegedly set the house ablaze. The family members who attempted to flee from the burning house towards the southern field were chased and mercilessly assaulted by the members of the unlawful assembly.
7. The investigation disclosed that Mahanth Indradeo Jyoti, Braj Bhushan Choudhary, Dr. Indranand Mishra, Lalan @ Ravi Bhushan Choudhary, and Anil Kumar Jha, died as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained during the occurrence. The injured persons included Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, Mani Kumari, Uma Devi, Maheshwari Devi, Satyendra Jha, Saraswati Devi, Urmila Devi, Murti Devi, Ram Chandra Mahto, Abinash Choudhary, Dauli (child), Arvind Kumar, Usha Mishra, Rita Devi, Punam Kumari, Doyal Mona, Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Munish Kumar and others, many of whom had sustained grievous injuries.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 46 witnesses including numerous injured eyewitnesses. The defence examined 13 witnesses.
9. The medical evidence stood fully proved through PW-1, Dr. Binod Kumar Mahto, who conducted the post-mortem examinations on four deceased persons namely, Mahanth Indradeo Jyoti, Braj Bhushan Choudhary, Dr. Indranand Mishra and Lalan @ Ravi Bhushan Choudhary; PW-46, Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Anil Kumar Jha; PW-43, Dr. Upendra Nath, who examined the injuries of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, Mani Kumari, Maheshwari Devi, Uma Devi, Satyendra Jha, Saraswati Devi, Anil Kumar Jha (while alive), Urmila Devi, Murti Devi, Ram Chandra Mahto, Abinash Choudhary, Dauli, Arvind Kumar, Usha Mishra, Rit
State of Karnataka v. Chikkahottappa @ Varade Gowda and Ors.
(1) Common object of unlawful assembly has to be determined from facts and circumstances of each case.(2) Grave suspicion cannot take place of proof. It is for prosecution to prove its case beyond re....
The assembly of individuals armed with deadly weapons, with a common intent to commit violence, constitutes an unlawful assembly under IPC, leading to vicarious liability for all members.
The court clarified that to establish liability for murder under joint criminal enterprise, a common object must be proved, which was not present in this case.
Power of High Court is very limited and as a general rule the High Court will not interfere in revision against the order of acquittal unless there is a gross error of law.
The court emphasized that all members of an unlawful assembly may be held liable for murder, reaffirming the interpretation of common intention under Section 149 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.