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, and lathis, hiding near the field. According to the prosecution, some from the mob began cutting paddy from the land. When Jagdish and Meghu objected, the mob surrounded and attacked them with stones and weapons. Meghu Mahato was shot dead. Hearing their alarms, other villagers including Sarjug Mahato arrived, and they too were attacked; Sarjug Mahato was also shot and killed. Several other prosecution witnesses sustained injuries. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered later that day based on the statement of the injured Jagdish Mahato, naming 72 accused. After trial, 21 persons were convicted for murder and other offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The High Court later acquitted 7, upholding the conviction of 11. The convicts appealed to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The case originated from the conviction of multiple accused by the Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Katihar) on 24 May 1990 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1989, holding 21 persons guilty of offences including murder read with Section 149 IPC. Dissatisfied, the convicts appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 17 July 2013 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 202 of 1990, partly allowed the appeal by acquitting 7 accused but upheld the conviction of 11 others. Subsequently, the remaining convicts filed appeals before the Supreme Court of India, which were admitted as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187 and 1188 of 2014 (arising from Special Leave Petitions). The Supreme Court heard the appeals together and delivered the present judgment on 7 October 2025, ultimately allowing the appeals and acquitting all the remaining appellants.
READ ALSO:Why a Poorly Drafted Plaint Can Derail Your Case: Lessons from a Recent Supreme Court Judgment
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object under Section 149 IPC. The testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses were marred by material inconsistencies, contradictions with medical evidence, and embellishments. The Court emphasized that mere presence in a crowd does not imply shared common object; passive onlookers or innocent bystanders cannot be convicted vicariously. It further noted that the statement of PW-20, treated as the FIR, was unreliable as prior information about the incident had already reached the police, rendering it a statement under Section 161 CrPC. Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent of convicting the appellants. All appellants were acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds were discharged. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence was inconsistent, the testimonies of injured witnesses were unreliable, and the appellants could not be conclusively proven to be members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object under Section 149 IPC.
Case Details:
Case Title:Zainul v. State of Bihar & Sattar & Ors. v. State of Bihar CITATION:2025 INSC 1192 Criminal Appeal No.:Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2014 Date of Judgement:7th October, 2025 Judges/Justices Name:Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here