Presence Alone Not Enough To Prove Guilt Under Unlawful Assembly | Identification Of Accused Was Doubtful | Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings In CAA-NRC Protest Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz has quashed the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.1063/2020 before the JMFC II Court, Mangaluru. The Court held that the identification of the accused among the mob was doubtful and that the charge sheet failed to justify the exclusion of others initially named in the FIR. Consequently, the Court allowed the criminal petition and directed that the proceedings against the petitioners stand quashed.
A criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners, who were accused Nos.9 to 16 in a charge sheet arising out of Crime No.248/2019. The proceedings pertained to alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 290, and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 2A and 2B of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (KPDLP Act).
The matter originated from a complaint filed by Sudhakar Gowda at Mangaluru South Police Station. According to the complaint, on 19 December 2019 at approximately 5:20 p.m., while the complainant was driving a bus (KA-19-AB-6845) near Highland Hospital, Kankanady, Mangaluru, a crowd of 50 to 100 individuals allegedly blocked the road, used abusive language, and hurled stones and soda bottles at the vehicle, causing damage estimated at ₹60,000.
The FIR was initially registered against unknown individuals. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against 16 accused, including the petitioners, alleging that they had conspired to protest against the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). The prosecution maintained that the accused formed an unlawful assembly in violation of imposed restrictions and instigated acts of violence against public property.
The petitioners contended that their mere presence in an assembly does not render them criminally liable unless a common object under Section 141 IPC is established. They argued that the charge sheet did not demonstrate a specific overt act attributable to them and relied on judicial precedents asserting the requirement of proof of common object for invoking Section 149 IPC.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz, after examining the materials on record and hearing both parties, recorded several key observations. He stated: “Admittedly, accused are strangers to the complainant. The descriptions of the accused who were among the mob and participated in pelting stones etc. are not mentioned in the complaint.”
Further, the Court noted: “Though the FIR was registered against 50 to 100 persons, charge sheet is filed only against 16 accused. Petitioners are alleged to have conspired to commit the offence and instigated other accused persons. The identification of the accused among the mob is doubtful.”
On the issue of constructive liability under Section 149 IPC, the Court relied on the precedent set in Charan Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 4 SCC 205, quoting:
“Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object… The object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly… In other words, they should all be aware of it and concur in it.”
The Bench remarked on the absence of a discernible link between the petitioners and the alleged common object or overt acts: “The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141.”
“The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141.”
In this context, the Court found the prosecution's materials insufficient to establish such elements conclusively.
The Court recorded that the accused were strangers to the complainant. It noted that the descriptions of the accused, who were allegedly among the mob and participated in pelting stones and similar acts, were not mentioned in the complaint.
While the FIR was registered against 50 to 100 persons, the charge sheet was filed only against 16 accused. The petitioners were alleged to have conspired to commit the offence and to have instigated other accused persons.
The identification of the accused among the mob was held to be doubtful. The Court observed that no reasons were assigned for not charge-sheeting the others.
Accordingly, the following order was passed:
The Court recorded that the accused were strangers to the complainant. It noted that the descriptions of the accused, who were allegedly among the mob and participated in pelting stones and similar acts, were not mentioned in the complaint.
While the FIR was registered against 50 to 100 persons, the charge sheet was filed only against 16 accused. The petitioners were alleged to have conspired to commit the offence and to have instigated other accused persons.
The identification of the accused among the mob was held to be doubtful. The Court observed that no reasons were assigned for not charge-sheeting the others.
Accordingly, the following order was passed: “Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1063/2020 pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangaluru are quashed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Lethif B, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Asma Kouser, Additional State Public Prosecutor for R1; R2 - Served but unrepresented
Case Title: Athaulla Jokatte & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:16038
Case Number: CRL.P No. 6797 of 2022
Bench: Justice Mohammad Nawaz
[Read/Download order]
