Summary
The Supreme Court altered the appellants’ murder convictions to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II and imposed seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Their membership of the unlawful assembly was proved, so absence of an individual fatal assault did not itself exclude liability. However, unexplained injuries to three accused, the cross-case and uncertainty about the assembly’s object created reasonable doubt about the murder case and supported the lesser offence.
Issues
- Whether a specific individual assault was necessary for liability under Section 149.
- Whether unexplained injuries on the accused and the surrounding circumstances undermined the murder conviction.
Provisions considered
- Sections 141, 142 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Proof of intentional membership sharing the unlawful common object could attract collective liability without proof that each member personally inflicted the fatal injury. (¶ 13–15)
- Sections 302 and 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860The unexplained defence injuries and uncertainty about the homicidal object warranted alteration from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (¶ 17–27)
Held
- Every unlawful-assembly member need not commit a separate overt assault. Membership and the requisite common object must be established, distinguishing intentional participants from merely passive or curious onlookers. The appellants’ membership was proved. (¶ 13–15)
- The prosecution’s failure to explain material injuries to the accused was significant alongside the defence evidence and cross-case. The lower courts had not properly assessed that evidence or the possibility of a free fight. (¶ 17–24)
- Non-explanation of injuries is not invariably fatal: minor injuries or overwhelmingly cogent independent evidence may stand differently. Here it cast doubt on whether the true genesis had been disclosed. (¶ 20–23)
- The record did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assembly intended to cause death. On the Court’s assessment the case attracted Section 304 Part II, with the benefit of doubt on the murder charge. (¶ 25–26)
Result
Appeals disposed of by altering conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II and sentencing the appellants to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Pending applications disposed of.