KISHANRAO NARAYANRAO GHUGE AND ORS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA INSC 359

KISHANRAO NARAYANRAO GHUGE AND ORS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA INSC 359 Facts:

Incident Overview: The appellants were involved in a violent altercation in which an individual was killed. The incident stemmed from a dispute between two groups within the village. The victim was assaulted by a group armed with deadly weapons, allegedly including the appellants, leading to his death. Charges: The appellants were charged under the Indian Penal Code for the following offenses: Section 147: Rioting Section 148: Rioting with deadly weapons Section 302: Murder Section 149: Common object of unlawful assembly Trial Court Proceedings: The trial court convicted the appellants on all charges, holding that they were part of an unlawful assembly with a common object that resulted in the murder of the victim. High Court Decision: The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s findings, confirming the convictions and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. Appeal to the Supreme Court: The appellants challenged the convictions, arguing that: There was no clear evidence to establish their participation in the unlawful assembly. Section 149 IPC was misapplied as there was no proof of a common object to commit the offense. Issues:

Key Legal Question: Whether the appellants were correctly convicted under Section 149 IPC, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the assembly's common object. Evidence and Participation: Whether the evidence on record sufficiently proved the appellants’ active participation in the unlawful assembly and the crime. Holding : The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, affirming both the trial court and the High Court's findings.

Rationale:

Section 149 IPC – Applicability: Core Principle: Section 149 IPC imposes vicarious liability on every member of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in prosecution of the assembly’s common object. Court’s Finding: The appellants were part of the unlawful assembly, which had the common object of committing violence, leading to the death of the victim. Evidence of Participation: The prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies that identified the appellants as active participants in the assembly. The Court noted that even if some members did not directly participate in the fatal assault, their presence in the unlawful assembly made them liable under Section 149 IPC. Common Object Inference: A common object need not be premeditated; it can be inferred from the conduct of the members and the circumstances. The Court observed that the appellants’ coordinated actions demonstrated their shared intention to cause harm, satisfying the requirements of Section 149 IPC. Role of Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on prior judgments to emphasize that being part of an unlawful assembly with a common object attracts liability for offenses committed in furtherance of that object, irrespective of individual roles. Rejection of Defense Arguments: The appellants’ claim that their involvement was incidental and not intentional was rejected. The Court held that the evidence clearly established their deliberate participation in the assembly. Key Observations: Unlawful Assembly: The Supreme Court clarified that the unlawful assembly's common object does not require explicit agreement; it can evolve during the incident. Accountability Under Section 149 IPC: Vicarious liability under Section 149 is stringent and extends to all members if the offense is a probable consequence of the assembly’s common object. Role of Courts: The trial court and High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, leaving no doubt about the appellants' involvement.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the appellants’ convictions, affirming the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC. The judgment reinforced that members of an unlawful assembly are collectively accountable for offenses committed in furtherance of their common object, irrespective of their individual roles. This case serves as a precedent in understanding the scope of Section 149 IPC and the judicial approach to analyzing common object and participation in unlawful assemblies.