Injured Witness - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Vicarious Liability in Group Assault Case

In this Supreme Court judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 149 applies when a member of an unlawful assembly shares its common object, irrespective of direct commission of the fatal act. It upheld that active facilitation and participation in a coordinated attack establishes guilt. Facts Of The Case: On April 27, 1999, Ankush Gholap and others were returning from Bhor in a jeep when they were intercepted by six accused persons on two motorcycles. The accused, armed with weapons like knives and a sattur, stopped the jeep near Navi Ali. Accused no. 3 removed the jeep's keys and assaulted the driver, while the others dragged Ankush and two other occu...

The “Unlawful Assembly” Test: Supreme Court Explains When Mere Presence at a Crime Scene Isn’t Enough

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that mere presence in a crowd does not automatically constitute membership in an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC. To establish constructive liability, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that each accused shared the common object of the assembly, distinguishing active participants from passive bystanders. Conviction requires cogent and consistent evidence linking the individual to the assembly's objective. Facts Of The Case: On 20 November 1988, at around 8:00 AM, informant Jagdish Mahato (PW-20) and his brother Meghu Mahato went to inspect their settled agricultural land in Baharkhal, Bihar. They allegedly found a large mob of 400-500 persons from the neighboring village of Mahila, many armed with weapons like guns, spears, ...

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...