Section 149 IPC| 'Common Object' Needs To Be Established To Charge All Individuals For Being Part Of Unlawful Assembly: Telangana HC

Post By 24law
February 23, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Telangana High Court has ruled that in order to convict individuals under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must establish that all the accused shared a common object. The court observed that in the absence of such proof, individuals can only be held liable for their own acts. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice E.V. Venugopal in a batch of criminal appeals.

Case Background

The case pertained to an incident in Gouraram Village where a protest by villagers regarding the allotment of surplus forest land escalated into violence. The deceased, a forest officer, lost his life in the ensuing altercation. Following the incident, a complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 302 IPC against all the accused. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 IPC, citing Section 149 IPC, which makes all members of an unlawful assembly liable for acts committed in pursuit of a common object. The appellants challenged the trial court's judgment, contending that the prosecution failed to establish a common object among all accused and that specific overt acts were only attributed to some individuals.

Court's Findings

The High Court noted that the crucial element in invoking Section 149 IPC is the existence of a "common object." The court observed: "It cannot be said that all the accused gathered with the common object of killing the deceased. Several villagers, other than the appellants, have attacked the vehicles and other officers. In the said situation, when it was accused No.1 who had attacked the deceased with an axe, the common object of all the appellants cannot be inferred. The appellants, other than accused Nos.1 and 2, were convicted on the basis of recoveries effected at their instance. None of the witnesses attributed any specific overt acts to other appellants apart from accused Nos.1 and 2."

The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Pandurang Thakre v. State of Maharashtra, which held that mere presence at the scene of an offense does not establish common object unless there is evidence of premeditated intent. The High Court reiterated: "In the absence of any evidence of conspiracy or any object being established, the accused would be liable for their individual acts. Moreover, there must be an unlawful assembly. Such offense must have been committed in pursuance of the common object of the assembly, or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed."

Reduction of Sentences

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prior meeting of minds among all the accused to commit murder. It ruled that: "There was no prior concert or pre-plan to commit the murder of the deceased. Even according to the witnesses, PW.1, deceased, and other officers had gathered at the forest area based on the information. None of the accused had any clue regarding the arrival of the officers. What all happened at the scene of offense was on the spur of the moment and the officials were attacked by the villagers, who were agitated for the reason of not providing or allocating the surplus land to them for cultivation."

As a result, the court modified the convictions as follows:

A1: Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld; sentenced to life imprisonment.

A2: Convicted under Section 326 IPC instead of 302 IPC; sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

Other Accused (A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A15, A16, A20, A22, A35, A36): Convicted under Section 324 IPC; sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.