The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a key principle of criminal law: when a group acts with a shared objective as part of an unlawful assembly, each member can be held responsible for the resulting crime—even if witnesses cannot pinpoint the exact role played by every individual.
While dismissing appeals filed by four convicted persons, the Court maintained their life sentences in a murder case, ruling that the prosecution’s case does not collapse merely because an eyewitness failed to describe the precise acts committed by each accused.
Liability Flows From the Common Object
The Bench noted that the law governing unlawful assemblies places emphasis on the collective intent of the group rather than on isolating individual acts. Once it is established that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly pursuing a common objective, the absence of a detailed eyewitness account about each person’s actions becomes irrelevant.
In this case, the prosecution alleged that six individuals, armed with deadly weapons, got down from a bus together and formed an unlawful assembly. Soon after, one of them fired a shot at the victim, striking his hand. The injured man ran for safety and hid inside a nearby house. The attackers chased him down, dragged him out, and ultimately killed him.
The owner of the house, an independent witness, testified that he heard gunshots during the incident.
Defence Argument Fails
The defence attempted to weaken the prosecution’s narrative by relying on the testimony of that independent witness. According to the defence, the witness did not see most of the accused firing at the victim or fleeing the scene, identifying only one individual.
This omission, the defence argued, created a gap in the prosecution’s story and cast doubt on the involvement of the remaining accused.
The Court rejected this line of argument. It held that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the accused had acted in concert. One person may have fired the shot, but the others actively pursued the victim, continuing the attack until he was killed.
Section 149 IPC Explained
The judgment emphasised that the law on unlawful assemblies rests on two essential ingredients: the existence of an unlawful assembly and a shared common object among its members. Once these elements are proven, every member becomes vicariously liable for acts committed by any member in pursuit of that objective.
The Court observed that the accused had arrived together, armed with firearms, and moved collectively in pursuit of the victim. Such conduct strongly indicated a shared intention, making it unnecessary for the prosecution to establish an overt act by each individual.
Appeals Dismissed
With the evidence demonstrating coordinated action and a shared purpose, the Court found no merit in the appeals. The convictions were upheld, and the accused—who had been out on bail—were directed to surrender and serve the remainder of their sentences.
