Summary
The Supreme Court found grave defects in charges, findings on unlawful assembly and the conduct of two connected trials. It clarified Section 149’s vicarious liability and rejected mechanical reuse of evidence from another trial. It nevertheless declined to reverse the acquittals or order a fresh trial 26 years after the incident. For the failure of criminal justice, it directed State public-law compensation of Rs.25 lakh to each deceased victim’s family and Rs.10 lakh to each injured witness or family.
Issues
- What findings and proof are necessary for unlawful assembly and vicarious liability under Section 149.
- Whether defective charges and trials justified reversing acquittals or ordering retrial after 26 years, and what relief remained available.
Provisions considered
- Sections 141, 143, 146, 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Unlawful assembly and rioting offences require proof of the assembly and its common object; Section 149 declares vicarious liability rather than a separate offence, and does not require an individual fatal act by every member. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Section 33, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Evidence from the earlier trial could not simply be marked in the later trial without establishing the exceptional statutory conditions, including the adverse party’s right and opportunity to cross-examine. (¶¶ 40, 41)
Held
- Charges must identify the specific accusations and victims, distinguishing direct liability from Section 149 liability. Defect or omission does not automatically invalidate a conviction: actual failure of justice must be examined. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 149 is declaratory of vicarious liability. Membership of an unlawful assembly of at least five persons and the requisite common object or knowledge must be proved; the identity of every member need not be established. Individual overt acts alone cannot determine the common object. (¶¶ 14, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- The courts below failed to record clear findings on the existence, membership and common object of the assembly. Their defective reasoning and charging failures did not themselves justify reversing acquittals. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39)
- The separate trial of the two later-apprehended accused was vitiated by substituting the earlier trial’s evidence without grounds satisfying Section 33. (¶¶ 40, 41)
- A fresh trial would ordinarily follow such failure of justice, but after 26 years, deaths of accused and uncertainty about witnesses and reliable recollection made it purposeless. (¶ 43)
- The State must deposit Rs.25 lakh for each deceased victim’s family and Rs.10 lakh for each injured witness, or the family if deceased, in the trial court within eight weeks. The Sessions Judge must verify entitlement and distribute the sums. (¶ 44)
Result
Appeals disposed of without reversal of acquittals or retrial. State directed to deposit the specified public-law compensation within eight weeks for distribution by the Sessions Judge after verification of claimants’ entitlement.