Grave suspicion cannot take the place of proof in case of vicarious liability, read the SC judgment

April 16, 2019:

Supreme Court has held that grave suspicion cannot take the place of proof to convict any a person for the murder with the help of the concept of unlawful assembly.

Justice Shantanagoudar speaking for a three judges bench has passed the judgment in case titled Bal Mukund Sharma vs The State of Bihar on 16.04.2019.

Six   accused   initially   accosted   the   informant, chased him to his house, and on failing to get a hold on him, set fire to a portion of his house and caught hold of his nephew (the deceased) who was done to death by the accused Brahamdeo. It is thus evident that the murder of the deceased was itself not the common object of the unlawful assembly.

Act of the accused Brahamdeo of shooting the deceased was found to be sudden, and knowledge of the likelihood of the same could not be attributed to the rest of the accused.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it observed “Though the other accused had followed the accused Brahamdeo, in our considered opinion, the evidence on record and circumstances of this case could not, conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt, show common object being shared by the other accused, in the commission of the offence of murder by the accused Brahamdeo”.

The Court also observed “It is no doubt true that the evidence on record may create grave suspicion in the mind of the Court about the complicity of the other accused also, with the help of Section 149, IPC, however, such grave suspicion cannot take the place of proof”.

The Supreme Court then observed “It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence on record creates suspicion in the mind of the Court, though grave, the same would not be sufficient to conclude that the other accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 along with the accused Brahamdeo, with the help of Section 149, IPC”.

The Supreme Court then held “In   such   circumstances,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the accused Kapildeo Chaudhry, Mahendra Rai, Babulal Chaudhry, Bhavesh Chaudhry and Anil Chaudhry cannot be said to have shared any common object for the murder of the deceased, and cannot be made liable for the same”.

Read the judgment here:

Picture Source :