Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC), underscored the significance of requiring convincing evidence for establishing the common object in cases pertaining to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the matter of Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of the Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana Case?

• The facts of the case pertain to the fact that certain persons had fired a gunshot at a boy. Upon reaching the place of incident, statement of one Mohit Kala was recorded.
• He stated that:
  • He saw Ajay and Suraj running towards the house of Dharmender as they were being chased by three youngsters on a bullet motorcycle.
  • Two more motorcycles having two riders each, with batons in their hands were following the Bullet motorcycle driven by Ravi.
  • Further, the person sitting on the Bullet motorcycle got down and fired at Ajay with a country-made revolver, which hit his head and Ajay fell down.
  • On raising the alarm, the assailants sped away on their motorcycles.
  • Ravi was studying in Ajay’s school and was his junior. He used to bully and threaten all.
  • Ajay had a fight with Ravi and Suraj and had threatened to kill him.
• First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was upon the incident.
• Thereafter, upon death of Ajay charge under Section 307 of IPC was converted to that of section 302 of the same Act.
• The Session Court convicted the accused persons which was upheld by the High Court.
• Hence, the present appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court considered the following case laws:
  • Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa (2012), SC held that as a participant in the unlawful assembly, one must have been aware that the murder of the deceased was a probable outcome in the pursuit of the common objective.
  • Lalji v. State of UP (1989), SC stated that “Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behavior of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case.”
• Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar while acquitting the accused persons observed that "To convict a person under Section 149 of IPC prosecution has to establish with the help of evidence that firstly, appellants shared a common object and were part of unlawful assembly and secondly, it had to prove that they were aware of the offences likely to be committed is to achieve the said common object."

What is Unlawful Assembly?

• Unlawful Assembly has been defined under Section 141 of IPC as:
• Section 141 - Unlawful Assembly — An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is
  • First —To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
  • Second —To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
  • Third —To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
  • Fourth—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
  • Fifth —By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation —An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
• Section 142 defines that who is said to be a member of such an assembly as whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
• The punishment for Unlawful Assembly is provided under Section 143 of the code as imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

What is a Common Object?

• Section 149 of IPC mentions the concept of the Common Object.
  • Section 149 Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object — If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
  • In, State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and Ors. (2003), SC defined Common Object as the word ‘object’ means the purpose and, in order to make it ‘common’, it must be shared by all.
  • Common Object is based upon the principle of Vicarious Liability which means that a person can be held responsible for the actions committed by others.
    • Every person who joins an unlawful assembly having the common object is held liable as he is accounted to have consented to furthering the object of such assembly.