In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that no overt act is required to establish guilt if the accused is a member of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit an offence. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Nitya Nand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2014).
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident that took place on September 8, 1992, in Soron, District Etah, Uttar Pradesh, where Satya Narain was brutally murdered. According to the prosecution, the murder was a result of a long-standing property dispute between Satya Narain and his brother Shree Dev. The deceased Satya Narain and his brothers, including the accused appellant Nitya Nand, were involved in litigation over property rights. The informant, Sarwan Kumar, son of the deceased, reported that on the day of the incident, the accused, armed with various weapons, attacked Satya Narain near the Ganga Ghat at Ambhagarh Akhada, leading to his death.
The Sessions Court in Etah convicted Nitya Nand and three others under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively. The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction in 2012. Dissatisfied, Nitya Nand filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the application of Section 149 of the IPC, which deals with the liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. The defence argued that the appellant, Nitya Nand, did not directly participate in the assault and that there was no recovery of the alleged weapon (a country-made pistol) used by him. They contended that his mere presence at the scene did not warrant conviction under Section 149 IPC.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC was justified. The Court emphasized that under Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to prove an overt act by each member of the unlawful assembly. The judgment underscored that “the presence of an accused in such an unlawful assembly is sufficient to render him vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for causing the death of the victim, provided that the accused were aware of the common object of the assembly.”
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivering the judgment, noted, “Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly.” The Court further stated that “the factum of causing injury or not causing injury would not be relevant when an accused is roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The relevant question to be examined by the court is whether the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and not whether he actually took active part in the crime or not.”
Important Observations by the Court
The Court referred to previous judgments, including Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka and Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, to reiterate that Section 149 IPC does not create a separate offence but only declares vicarious liability of all members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in furtherance of the common object. The Court clarified:
– “No overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when the charge is under Section 149 IPC; the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.”
– “The liability of every member of the unlawful assembly arises from the fact that they share a common object to commit the offence.”
Parties Involved and Representation
– Appellant: Nitya Nand
– Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2014
Counsel for Appellant: The appellant was represented by senior counsel, whose main contention was that the trial court and the High Court had erred in convicting him without sufficient evidence of his direct involvement in the crime.
Counsel for Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by its counsel, who argued that the appellant’s presence at the scene, combined with the eyewitness accounts and the motive established by the ongoing property dispute, justified the conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.
