Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an incident where five individuals, including the appellants, went to take forcible possession of a field cultivatorily possessed by Rameshwar and others. Tej Singh, armed with a spear, stood guard while Maiku ploughed the field and others cut sugarcane. When Rameshwar and his companions arrived and protested, all accused gathered and threatened to finish them if they did not leave. On their refusal, Tej Singh instructed his son Mizaji to fire, and Mizaji shot Rameshwar dead. The trial court found the common object of the unlawful assembly was to take forcible possession and meet all eventualities, including causing death if interfered with. It convicted all accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing Mizaji to death and the others to imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the convictions. In appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the other members of the assembly could not have known that Mizaji carried a pistol hidden in his dhoti, that the murder was not committed in prosecution of the common object, and that they did not know murder was likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circumstances showed the appellants must have known Mizaji was carrying a pistol. The Court emphasized that the extent to which members of an unlawful assembly were prepared to go is indicated by the weapons carried and their conduct. The appellants were prepared to take forcible possession at any cost, and the murder was immediately connected with the common object. Under the first part of Section 149, an offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one that was committed with a view to accomplish the common object and must be connected immediately with that object. The Court thus upheld the convictions and sentences, finding that the common object encompassed the potential use of lethal force.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Constructive Liability - Common Object - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 149 - An offence committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly must be one that was committed with a view to accomplish the common object and must be connected immediately with that object. The circumstances showed that the accused were prepared to take forcible possession at any cost and the murder was immediately connected with the common object. Held that the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 was proper. B) Criminal Law - Constructive Liability - Knowledge of Weapon - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 149 - The extent to which members of an unlawful assembly are prepared to go is indicated by the weapons carried and their conduct. Knowledge of a lethal weapon carried by a member can be inferred from the circumstances. Held that the other appellants must have known Mizaji carried a pistol.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the other appellants could be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder committed by one member of the unlawful assembly when the common object was only to take forcible possession, and it was contended that the other members did not know that the actual perpetrator carried a pistol
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences. It held that the circumstances showed the appellants must have known Mizaji was carrying a pistol, that they were prepared to take forcible possession at any cost, and that the murder was immediately connected with the common object. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Under Section 149 IPC
- an offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which was committed with a view to accomplish the common object and must be connected immediately with the common object
- the extent to which members of an unlawful assembly were prepared to go is indicated by the weapons carried and their conduct
- knowledge of a lethal weapon carried by a member can be inferred from circumstances
- constructive liability for murder when common object is to take forcible possession at any cost
