{"id":365291,"date":"2025-10-31T10:00:56","date_gmt":"2025-10-31T04:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=365291"},"modified":"2025-11-01T16:03:16","modified_gmt":"2025-11-01T10:33:16","slug":"sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> 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.<\/span> 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<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’).<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Sessions Court framed charges against all accused for offences under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 149<\/a>, 302<\/a>, and 307<\/a> IPC<\/a>, and alternatively under Sections 302<\/a> and 307<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> IPC<\/a>. The Trial Court convicted accused 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302<\/a> and 307<\/a> IPC<\/a>, sentencing them to life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Accused 6 was convicted under Section 307<\/a> IPC<\/a> and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, while being acquitted under Section 302<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Accused 3, 4, and 5 were acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Consequently, Accused 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 were held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 149<\/a>, 302<\/a>, and 307<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>, and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, accused 3 and 4 and accused 6 (collectively referred to as ‘appellants’) filed the present appeals.<\/p>\n

The first appeal was filed under Section 379<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) and Section 2(a)<\/a> of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970<\/a> 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<\/a> and 307<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, earlier recorded by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>, and reversed his acquittal for the offence under Section 302<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Referring to its earlier decision in Chandrappa<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, (2007) 4 SCC 415<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Medical Corroboration<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Common Object and Vicarious Liability<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Relying on Section 149<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> and precedents such as Masalti<\/span> v. State of U.P<\/span>., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30<\/a>, t<\/span>he 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> and 307<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> were fully satisfied, rendering the appellants vicariously liable.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

[Haribhau v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2301<\/a>, decided on 29-10-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Appellant(s):<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span> Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.<\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Trial Court overlooked the consistent and corroborated testimony of injured eyewitnesses and failed to appreciate the legal effect of the active participation of the appellants as members of an unlawful assembly. The High Court, in reversing the acquittal, has given cogent and well-reasoned findings based on a proper appraisal of the record.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":365297,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[15081,84314,42758,54817,47948,5363,15071,20481],"class_list":["post-365291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-common-object","tag-conviction-upheld","tag-indian-penal-code","tag-murder-case","tag-section-149-ipc","tag-supreme-court","tag-unlawful-assembly","tag-vicarious-liability"],"yoast_head":"\nSC Ruling on Vicarious liability of Members of Unlawful Assembly | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court upholds conviction of 3 accused in a murder case, reiterating that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"'Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts'; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court upholds conviction of 3 accused in a murder case, reiterating that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-31T04:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-01T10:33:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"'Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts'; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"headline\":\"‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-31T04:30:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-01T10:33:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/unlawful-assembly.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"common object\",\"Conviction upheld\",\"Indian Penal Code\",\"murder case\",\"Section 149 IPC\",\"Supreme Court\",\"unlawful assembly\",\"vicarious liability\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC Ruling on Vicarious liability of Members of Unlawful Assembly | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/unlawful-assembly.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-31T04:30:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-01T10:33:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court upholds conviction of 3 accused in a murder case, reiterating that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/unlawful-assembly.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/unlawful-assembly.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"unlawful assembly\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/31\\\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/scc-editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Ruling on Vicarious liability of Members of Unlawful Assembly | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court upholds conviction of 3 accused in a murder case, reiterating that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"'Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts'; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case","og_description":"Supreme Court upholds conviction of 3 accused in a murder case, reiterating that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-10-31T04:30:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-11-01T10:33:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"'Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts'; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/"},"author":{"name":"Apoorva","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"headline":"‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case","datePublished":"2025-10-31T04:30:56+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-01T10:33:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/"},"wordCount":1560,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.webp","keywords":["common object","Conviction upheld","Indian Penal Code","murder case","Section 149 IPC","Supreme Court","unlawful assembly","vicarious liability"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/","name":"SC Ruling on Vicarious liability of Members of Unlawful Assembly | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.webp","datePublished":"2025-10-31T04:30:56+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-01T10:33:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court upholds conviction of 3 accused in a murder case, reiterating that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"unlawful assembly"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/sc-unlawful-assembly-vicarious-liability-section-149-conviction-murder-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"‘Members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable once common object and participation are proved, regardless of individual acts’; SC upholds conviction of 3 in murder case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/unlawful-assembly.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":273290,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/supreme-court-karnataka-high-court-section-302-of-the-penal-code-section-378-crpc-conviction-acquittal-unlawful-assembly-murder-common-object-first-information-reports-rioting-trespass-wi\/","url_meta":{"origin":365291,"position":0},"title":"Reversing acquittal of only 2 out of 22 acquitted murder accused, despite glaring contradictions between witness testimonies, illogical; SC sets aside Karnataka HC verdict","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: In an appeal against the Karnataka High Court's reversal of acquittal of 2 out of the 22 accused acquitted by the Sessions Court in a murder case, the bench of V. Ramasubramanian*and Indira Banerjee, JJ has reversed the High Court's verdict observing that there were glaring\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288735,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/07\/supreme-court-sets-aside-conviction-for-rioting-criminal-trespass-and-murder-since-prosecution-story-was-not-beyond-reasonable-doubt-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":365291,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Possible that the entire story was a complete set-up by police\u2019; Supreme Court set aside conviction in rioting, criminal trespass and murder case","author":"Editor","date":"April 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court doubted the prosecution's story due to various lacunas existing in it, the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the material inconsistency in the statements of the eyewitnesses.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Beyond reasonable doubt","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1035.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1035.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1035.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1035.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":55461,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/11\/husband-and-father-in-law-held-guilty-of-murder-on-the-basis-of-circumstantial-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":365291,"position":2},"title":"Husband and Father-in-law held guilty for the murder of a young bride on the basis of circumstantial evidence","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 11, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While examining the circumstantial evidences in case of brutal murder of a young bride, the bench comprising of Prafulla C. Pant \u00a0and D. Y. Chandrachud JJ. held the appellants guilty for the murder along with the mother-in-law of the deceased, who had already been convicted for the offence.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241424,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/28\/when-can-members-of-a-group-be-held-individually-guilty-for-an-offence-supreme-explains-applicability-of-sections-34-and-149-of-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":365291,"position":3},"title":"When can members of a group be held individually guilty for an offence? Supreme Court explains applicability of Sections 34 and 149 of IPC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 28, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Explaining the difference between Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has held that \u201cAlthough both Section 34 and 149 of the IPC are modes for apportioning vicarious liability on the individual members of a group,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236540,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/30\/is-active-involvement-in-the-commission-of-offence-a-pre-condition-for-common-intention-sc-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":365291,"position":4},"title":"Is active involvement in the commission of offence a pre-condition for common intention? SC answers","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 30, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that it is not necessary that before a person is convicted on the ground of common intention, he must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault.\u00a0 If the nature of evidence displays\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223728,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/01\/cal-hc-common-intention-under-s-34-ipc-is-a-species-of-constructive-liability-not-to-be-confused-with-similar-intention\/","url_meta":{"origin":365291,"position":5},"title":"Cal HC | Common intention under S. 34 IPC is a species of constructive liability, not to be confused with similar intention","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Joymalya Baghi and Suvra Ghosh, JJ., partly allowed a criminal appeal against the order of the trial court and thereby acquitted two out of six appellants who were convicted under Section 302\u00a0(punishment for murder)\u00a0and Section 109\u00a0(punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=365291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365291\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/365297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=365291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=365291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=365291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}