Reaffirming the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld life sentences awarded to five men accused of conspiring with Maoists in the 2019 murder of a villager. The Court held that the “common object” of an unlawful assembly can be inferred from the conduct of its members, the weapons carried, and the manner of participation in the crime.
The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal in Criminal Appeals Nos. 354, 309, 425, and 1333 of 2024, arising from a common conviction by the Special Judge under the NIA Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker.
Case Background
The case stems from a violent incident on the night of August 27, 2019, when Dadusingh Koratia, a resident of village Konde, District North Bastar Kanker, was murdered at his home. The attackers were alleged members and supporters of the CPI (Maoist). According to the prosecution, the accused, armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the house of the deceased, eventually shooting him dead and fleeing while shouting Maoist slogans such as “Lal Salaam Zindabad” and “RSS goons should die like this.”
The incident was witnessed by the deceased’s wife, Smt. Devli Koratia (PW-1), who immediately lodged a report with Police Station Durgukondal, leading to the registration of Crime No. 23/2019 under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, among others.
Convicted Appellants and Legal Representation
- Sunher Pudo (CRA No. 354/2024) – Represented by Mr. Rajat Agrawal
- Jailal Markam & Dalsu Ram Pudo (CRA No. 309/2024) – Represented by Ms. Savita Tiwari
- Jagduram Korram (CRA No. 425/2024) – Represented by Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia
- Sukal @ Mansingh Yadav (CRA No. 1333/2024) – Represented by Mr. Sanjay Pathak
All appeals were contested by Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate for the State.
Trial Court Judgment
In Special Case No. 22/2021, the trial court had convicted all five accused for:
- Section 148 IPC – Rioting with deadly weapons (3 years RI)
- Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy (Life imprisonment)
- Section 302/149 IPC – Murder by unlawful assembly (Life imprisonment)
Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Key Legal Issue
Whether the appellants, who were not shown to have fired the fatal shots, could be held guilty under Section 149 IPC based on their presence and conduct as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to murder.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Rejecting the appellants’ arguments that they merely stood outside the victim’s house and were not the shooters, the High Court observed:
“It is not necessary for each member to commit the fatal blow. The common object can be inferred from the assembly’s composition, the weapons used, and the slogans shouted.”
The Court placed reliance on Smt. Devli Koratia’s eyewitness account, who identified Sunher Pudo, Jailal, Jagduram, and others as part of the mob. They were seen standing near the scene while Maoists carried out the killing.
“Mere presence in an unlawful assembly, combined with supportive conduct, is enough to attract vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC,” the Bench held.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) 7 SCC 743, emphasizing that:
“In cases of unlawful assemblies, it is not necessary that each accused should inflict injuries. Their presence and conduct during the incident are sufficient to establish guilt under Section 149 IPC.”
Further, addressing the element of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), the Court ruled:
“A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. It can be proved from circumstantial evidence and conduct. The accused provided logistical support and identified the victim — that was sufficient to prove the conspiracy.”
Court’s Final Observations
“The unlawful assembly came armed, chanted death slogans, and aided the Maoists. Their silence, presence, and slogans speak louder than direct blows.”
The Court held that both the common object and criminal conspiracy were well established, dismissing all appeals and affirming the convictions and sentences.
