SC answers: Whether a conviction under section 302 of IPC is tenable upon failure to establish a 'common object of the unlawful assembly'? Read Judgment

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment altered the conviction of an appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304, which also resulted in a reduced sentence. The decision was based on the Court's observation that the "prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had an intention to cause the death of the deceased."

Brief Facts of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, where the Court had upheld the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were also sentenced to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, and 148 of the IPC

The dispute was over a shed constructed by the appellant in the village passage used by cattle. This dispute escalated when a buffalo from the complainant party damaged the shed, leading to a confrontation. The accused, including the appellants, later went to the house of a witness, where they assaulted and grievously injured members of the complainant party. One of the complainants succumbed to his injuries resulting in a change in the charges from Sections 307, 323, 452, 147, 148, and 149 of IPC to Section 302 IPC.

The appellant submitted that both the High Court and the trial court have grossly erred in convicting the appellants as they failed to attribute any specific role to the appellants. In the absence of the same, it was argued that the conviction recorded under Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable. It was further argued that the appellant was only holding a 'lathi' and as such, no injuries which had caused the death of the deceased can be attributed to him.

The Supreme Court cited the principles of liability under Section 149 of the IPC, which do not require a specific role for each member of an unlawful assembly. The Court relied on the judgment in the case of Masalti v. State of U.P^[1] where a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had held “that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.”

In this case, the evidence showed that the appellants were members of the unlawful assembly, even if their specific actions were not detailed.

Noting that “non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not”, the Supreme Court was of the view that the injuries sustained by the accused, which included sharp weapon injuries, were not adequately explained by the prosecution.

The decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had the intention to cause the death of the deceased. As a result, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Part II of Section 304 IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the sentence was reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.