Mere Presence in Unlawful Assembly Insufficient for S.302/149 IPC Conviction Without Shared Common Object: Chhattisgarh HC - 2025-04-03

Chhattisgarh High Court Partially Upholds Convictions in 2019 Mob Violence Case, Acquits Four

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - In a recent judgment delivered on February 20, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , addressed a batch of criminal appeals stemming from a 2019 mob violence incident in Korba district. The court partially upheld the convictions of five individuals while acquitting four others, emphasizing the crucial element of shared "common object" in cases of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background

The appeals arose from judgments dated March 19 and 21, 2024, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Court, Katghora, respectively. These judgments convicted several individuals for offenses including rioting (Section 148 IPC), attempted murder (Section 307/149 IPC), murder (Section 302/149 IPC), and property damage (Section 427/149 IPC) in connection with an incident that occurred on the night of October 8-9, 2019, in Premnagar, Korba. The prosecution’s case was that the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, assaulted Bhanu Pratap Khunte (PW-1), Mrigesh Kumar Sahu (PW-2), and Rajendra Kumar Khunte (PW-3), resulting in the death of Sunil Singh .

Arguments Presented

Appellants' counsels argued discrepancies in the initial complaint and FIR, claiming some accused were implicated later based on memorandum statements. They contended that not all accused were named in the initial reports, and incriminating articles were not recovered from all. Furthermore, they argued a lack of specific overt acts attributed to certain accused and questioned if the common object of the assembly was indeed murder.

The State, represented by the Government Advocate, supported the trial court's judgments, asserting that the prosecution had proven the offenses beyond reasonable doubt, citing the postmortem report and witness testimonies establishing the homicidal nature of the death and the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object.

Court's Observations and Reasoning

The High Court framed key questions, including whether the death was homicidal, if an unlawful assembly existed with a common object, and if all accused could be convicted under Section 149 IPC.

Regarding the death's nature, the court concurred with the trial court, affirming it as homicidal based on the postmortem report and medical testimony. However, the court delved deeper into the aspect of unlawful assembly and common object. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohan Singh vs. State of Punjab , the High Court reiterated that an unlawful assembly requires five or more persons with a shared common object as defined under Section 141 IPC.

The court noted that while some accused were named in the FIR by the primary complainant Bhanu Pratap Khunte (PW-1), others were added later. After analyzing the evidence, including testimonies of injured witnesses, the High Court concluded that the common object of the unlawful assembly, primarily involving Rakesh Das , Rajesh Sahu , Rakesh Kumar @ Pintu Sahu, Rahul Das , and Divyanshu Mishra , was to cause hurt to the complainant party, stemming from an earlier altercation related to comments made during Dushera celebrations.

Crucially, the court distinguished between mere presence in an unlawful assembly and active participation with shared intent. Referencing Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar , the judgment emphasized that mere presence is insufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC unless a shared common object is proven.

The court observed, "…it is also clearly established that these 4 accused-appellants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Sarthi (A-2), Devendra Kumar (A-5), ABC (A-1 (juvenile)) and XYZ (A-2 (juvenile)) have not shared common object/intention and particularly it is not proved that these appellants knew that offence of murder is likely to be committed by remaining 5 accused-appellants…". This lack of proven shared intent to commit murder and absence of overt acts led to the acquittal of Pradeep Kumar Sarthi , Devendra Kumar, and the two juveniles (ABC and XYZ).

Final Verdict and Implications

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeals of Pradeep Kumar Sarthi , Devendra Kumar, ABC, and XYZ, acquitting them of all charges. The court dismissed the appeals of Rakesh Das , Rajesh Sahu , Rakesh Kumar @ Pintu Sahu, Rahul Das , and Divyanshu Mishra , upholding their convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court.

This judgment underscores the importance of establishing a shared "common object" and active participation beyond mere presence when invoking Section 149 IPC in cases of unlawful assembly. It highlights that not every member of an assembly is automatically liable for the gravest offense committed if their individual intent and actions do not align with that specific offense. The verdict serves as a reminder for courts to meticulously examine evidence to distinguish between individuals with shared criminal intent and those merely present in an unlawful gathering.