Supreme Court: In two criminal appeals filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court, which set aside the acquittal of the appellants-accused persons in a premeditated assault resulting in the death of one person and grievous injury to two others, the Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi*, JJ. noting that the appellants were not passive spectators but integral participants in a premeditated and violent assault, upheld their conviction. The Court held that, irrespective of their individual actions, once the accused shared a common object and actively participated as members of an unlawful assembly, they were vicariously liable under Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Background
Between 25-04-1999 and 27-04-1999, several wedding ceremonies took place within different branches of a family at village Kari, Pune District. On 26-04-1999, during one of the wedding processions, the deceased was assaulted on the head by the brother of accused 1. Later that night, the deceased lodged a police complaint.
On 27-04-1999, the deceased, accompanied by the witnesses, travelled to Bhor . While returning near Navi Ali, they stopped the vehicle. At that time, accused 1 and 2 arrived on a motorbike driven by accused 3, while accused 4 followed on another motorbike with accused 5 and accused 6 as pillion riders.
Accused 3 removed the jeep’s keys and punched witness 1, while the other accused dragged the deceased and others out of the jeep. Accused 1 and 2 attacked the deceased with sharp weapons, causing his death on the spot. Other witnesses sustained grievous injuries, while witness managed to escape and report the incident to the police.
The postmortem examination confirmed that the deceased had died due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple injuries inflicted by sharp weapons. Other witnesses were treated for serious injuries at local hospitals. The accused were arrested, and a chargesheet was filed.
The Sessions Court framed charges against all accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 IPC, and alternatively under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted accused 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Accused 6 was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, while being acquitted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused 3, 4, and 5 were acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence.
Before the High Court, Accused 1, 2, and 6 filed appeals against their convictions, while the State filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of Accused 3, 4, and 5. By the impugned judgment dated 02-02-2011, the High Court partly allowed the State’s appeal, reversing the acquittal of Accused 3 and 4, and dismissed the appeals of Accused 1, 2, and 6, affirming their convictions. The High Court also reversed the acquittal of Accused 6 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Consequently, Accused 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 were held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, accused 3 and 4 and accused 6 (collectively referred to as ‘appellants’) filed the present appeals.
The first appeal was filed under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 by accused 3 and accused 4, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court , which had partly allowed the appeal and reversed their acquittal for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, earlier recorded by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
The second was filed by accused 6 challenging the same High Court judgment wherein the High Court had dismissed his appeal, upheld his conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, and reversed his acquittal for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court reiterated that interference with an order of acquittal must be exercised with great caution. However, such interference was justified where the findings of the Trial Court were manifestly perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence on record.
Referring to its earlier decision in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Court observed that an Appellate Court possesses full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider the evidence on which an order of acquittal is founded and may reach its own conclusions if the trial court’s view is not reasonably sustainable.
Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court held that the Trial Court’s acquittal suffered from a fundamental misappreciation of evidence, as it failed to properly consider the consistent and corroborated testimony of the injured eyewitnesses and overlooked the active participation of the appellants as members of the unlawful assembly.
The Court further noted that the High Court had rightly reversed the acquittal, having rendered cogent and well-reasoned findings based on a proper appraisal of the evidence on record.
Taking note of the evidence on record, the Court observed that a careful perusal of the depositions revealed the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to be natural, coherent, and mutually corroborative on all material particulars. The witnesses consistently stated that on 27-04-1999, the accused persons, including the appellants, had arrived at the scene on two motorcycles armed with deadly weapons such as knives and sattur.
The Court noted that the appellants had actively facilitated the commission of the offence by accompanying the co-accused, ensuring the confinement of the victims, and participating in a coordinated assault. The witnesses categorically deposed that accused 3 and 4 were among those who surrounded the deceased and the injured witnesses, thereby preventing their escape, and that they were fully aware that the co-accused were armed. The evidence further established that the accused 6 inflicted grievous injuries on witness 7, demonstrating his direct participation in the attack.
The testimony of witness 9 corroborated these accounts and clearly identified all three appellants as members of the group acting in concert and sharing a common objective.
The Court held that the consistent and corroborated narrative of the eyewitnesses left no room for doubt that accused 3 and 4 had facilitated the attack by transporting the armed assailants to the scene, and accused 6 had directly participated in the assault, making all of them integral participants in the execution of the unlawful design.
Medical Corroboration
The Court observed that the medical evidence strongly corroborated the prosecution’s case and reinforced the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased, recorded multiple incised and penetrating wounds on vital organs, including the heart, liver, and brain, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death due to hemorrhagic shock.
The Court noted that these medical findings perfectly aligned with the ocular evidence, highlighting the brutal and coordinated nature of the attack. The timing, nature, and multiplicity of injuries clearly indicated a deliberate and orchestrated assault executed in furtherance of a common unlawful object. The Court concluded that the harmony between the medical and eyewitness evidence left no scope for doubt regarding the active participation of the appellants in the premeditated attack.
Common Object and Vicarious Liability
The Court observed that the principal defence of the appellants, that there was no common object to commit murder, and the intent was only to cause hurt was untenable. The prosecution had established that all accused, including the appellants, arrived together armed with lethal weapons and jointly executed a deliberate and coordinated assault. The nature of the weapons, the ferocity of the attack, and the precision of the assault demonstrated that the common object extended beyond causing hurt and encompassed murder.
Relying on Section 149 of the IPC and precedents such as Masalti v. State of U.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30, the Court held that once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member of an unlawful assembly becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in furtherance of that object.
In this case, the evidence conclusively established that accused 3 and 4 facilitated the attack by transporting the armed assailants, while accused 6 directly inflicted grievous injuries, demonstrating active participation. The Court noted that the appellants were not passive spectators but integral participants in a premeditated and violent assault.
After a comprehensive review, the Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the active participation of the appellants in furtherance of the common object to commit murder and grievous assault. The High Court had correctly reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal, which had failed to appreciate material evidence. The Court held that Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC were fully satisfied, rendering the appellants vicariously liable.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed on accused 3, 4, and 6 by the High Court, and dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit.
[Haribhau v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2301, decided on 29-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
