Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 27 April 1999 where Ankush Gholap was murdered and two others were injured during a wedding-related dispute. The appellants, Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse (accused no. 3), Raju @ Rajendra Bhiwrao Shirwale (accused no. 4), and Subhash Raghunath Pawar (accused no. 6), were convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, but the trial court acquitted them of murder under Section 302 IPC. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the common object to murder was not established against the appellants. The court noted that the main accused (accused no. 1 and 2) were acquitted by the trial court and the High Court did not interfere with that acquittal. The appellants were not named in the FIR, and their role was limited to removing keys from the jeep and punching the driver. The court held that the appellants could not be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 149 IPC as the common object was not proved. The court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, but upheld the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for the injuries caused to the other victims.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Section 149 IPC - The court examined whether the appellants shared the common object to murder the deceased. Held that the common object must be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances. The mere presence at the scene or participation in an assault does not automatically establish a common object to murder. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Section 149 IPC - Overt Act Not Necessary - The court reiterated that a person can be vicariously liable for acts of others in an unlawful assembly even without committing an overt act, provided the common object is proved. However, if the common object is not established, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 149. (Paras 16-20) C) Criminal Law - Acquittal of Main Accused - Effect on Others - The court noted that the main accused (accused no. 1 and 2) were acquitted by the trial court and the High Court did not reverse their acquittal. The appellants' conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was set aside as the common object to murder was not proved against them. (Paras 21-25) D) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - FIR Not Naming Accused - The court observed that the appellants were not named in the FIR, and their involvement was based on subsequent statements. This raised doubt about their participation in the common object. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder, and whether their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge of murder. However, the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC was upheld. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Common object under Section 149 IPC must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Unlawful assembly requires common object
- Overt act not necessary for vicarious liability
- Acquittal of main accused does not automatically exonerate others
- Benefit of doubt for accused not named in FIR
