2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10176

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
HARIBHAU @ BHAUSAHEB DINKAR KHARUSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001755-001755 - 2011

Members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for murder committed in prosecution of common object, even without individual overt act, provided participation and shared intent are proved.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 141, 149, 302, 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 379 - Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Section 2(a) - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Vicarious liability - Every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object - It is not necessary for each member to have committed specific overt act - Once participation and sharing of common object are proved, each member becomes vicariously liable - In present case, appellants arrived together on motorcycles, armed with lethal weapons, and jointly executed coordinated assault - Medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony - High Court justified in reversing trial court's acquittal where trial court's view was perverse and contrary to evidence - Appellate court can reappreciate evidence and reach its own conclusions if trial court's view is not reasonably sustainable. (Paras 41-44, 46)

(B) Appeal - Scope of interference with order of acquittal - Appellate court possesses full power to review and reappreciate evidence - Interference justified where findings of trial court are manifestly perverse, unreasonable or contrary to evidence - Mere possibility of another view does not warrant interference - However, if trial court's view is not reasonably sustainable, appellate court may reverse. (Paras 29-30, relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka)

(C) Evidence - Credibility of injured eyewitnesses - Testimony of injured witnesses is given great weight - Their presence at scene is natural - Contradictions must be material to discredit - In present case, ocular evidence of PW-1, PW-7, PW-9 was consistent, natural and mutually corroborative on material particulars - Medical evidence fully corroborated injuries - No reason to doubt their testimony. (Paras 35-40)

Facts of the case:
On 27.04.1999, after a prior altercation, the deceased along with others were travelling in a jeep when they were intercepted by the accused persons who arrived on two motorcycles. The appellants (accused no.3,4,6) along with co-accused attacked the deceased and two others with knives and a sattur, resulting in the death of one and grievous injuries to the other two. The trial court convicted accused no.1,2,6 but acquitted appellants. The High Court reversed the acquittal of appellants and convicted them under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that all three appellants were members of an unlawful assembly sharing common object to commit murder and grievous assault. The ocular testimonies of injured eyewitnesses were natural, cogent and corroborated by medical evidence. The appellants' active participation in a concerted and premeditated attack was established. The High Court correctly reversed the trial court's unsustainable acquittal. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Issues: The main issues were whether the ingredients of Section 149 IPC were satisfied and whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 149 IPC imposes vicarious liability on every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary for each member to commit an overt act. In this case, the evidence established that the appellants were active participants in a coordinated lethal attack, sharing the common object of murder. The High Court's interference was justified as the trial court's view was perverse and not reasonably sustainable.

Result: Appeals dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed.