{"id":258101,"date":"2021-12-04T10:00:59","date_gmt":"2021-12-04T04:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=258101"},"modified":"2021-12-10T15:53:00","modified_gmt":"2021-12-10T10:23:00","slug":"does-pointing-towards-victims-hiding-place-make-one-a-part-of-a-murderous-unlawful-assembly-not-brave-enough-at-most-holds-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/04\/does-pointing-towards-victims-hiding-place-make-one-a-part-of-a-murderous-unlawful-assembly-not-brave-enough-at-most-holds-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Does pointing towards victim’s hiding place make one a part of a “murderous” unlawful assembly? “Not brave enough” at most, holds SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a case where an accused merely pointed to the house where the victim was hiding, thereby helping a fully armed \u201cmurderous mob\u201d locate the victim, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*<\/strong> and MM Sundresh, JJ has held that the mere fact that the accused was not brave enough to conceal where the victim was hiding did not make him a part of the unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC.<\/p>\n

A house was being constructed on land stated to be of the victim named Abdul Wahab and others when the accused persons came in a mob towards the house of the victim armed with lathis, spears, daggers, etc. The victim tried to escape by taking shelter in the house of one Shorab Ali but did not succeed as the house was surrounded, walls of the house were broken and a mounted assault made on the victim. Different accused were assigned different roles to the extent of the weapon they wielded. The body of the victim was then carried and disposed of by throwing in the river Brahmaputra.<\/p>\n

Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147\/148\/324\/302\/201 read with Section 149 of the IPC and the Sessions Judge convicted all the 32 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 8.5.2015.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, in the case at hand, was only concerned with the appeal filed by Taijuddin, one of the accused, claiming that his role was only of having pointed out the house where the victim was hiding.<\/p>\n

The Court considered the following key factors while deciding the case:<\/p>\n