Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• This legal provision establishes group liability, indicating vicarious or constructive criminal responsibility.
• According to Section 149, if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offense in pursuit of the assembly's common goal, or if an offense is committed by any member with the assembly's knowledge that such an offense was likely to occur, all assembly members are culpable.
• The term "in prosecution of common object" means "to achieve the common goal." The impact of Section 149 can differ among assembly members.
• The determination of common object depends on the assembly's nature, the weapons carried by members, and their behavior during the incident. Success is not always necessary.

Difference between the two parts of the section

• In the case of In Bhargavan v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court clarified that the phrase 'in prosecution of the common object' in section 149 should be interpreted as 'in order to attain the common object.' This connection must be intrinsic to the nature of the object, requiring a shared objective among the individuals involved. The common object is not a perpetual commitment but may cease to exist at a certain point.
• In the case of Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphasized that determining the common object is not bound by strict guidelines. It can be inferred from the assembly's nature, the presence of weapons, and the conduct before, during, and after the incident. The term 'knew' in the latter part of the section implies more than a mere possibility; it necessitates actual knowledge. Positive knowledge is essential for liability.
• In the case of State of Punjab v. Sanjiv Kumar, the Supreme Court highlighted that the term 'object' in section 141 denotes the purpose or intention, which must be collectively shared within a group. All members of an unlawful assembly should be cognizant of and agree with this objective. The common object can be established through explicit agreement after mutual discussion, but this is not mandatory. It can emerge at any point, with some members initiating it and others joining later. Once formed, the common object is not static and may evolve.

Members split into groups

• When individuals in an unlawful assembly divide into separate groups and commit offenses in pursuit of the assembly's shared goal, they collectively bear responsibility for the crimes.
• In the legal case of Vithal Bhimashah Koli v. State, the Supreme Court ruled that even if individuals arrived at the scene independently and without prior coordination, their actions could still be considered part of the assembly's common objective.
• For instance, if a group of individuals unlawfully gathers with the shared purpose of causing public disturbance, and some members engage in vandalism while others incite violence, all participants can be held accountable for the overall unlawful activities.
• In the mentioned case, although some accused individuals were acquitted due to the state party's lack of appeal, the court had to assess the remaining individuals' liability based on their individual actions.

Nexus between the common object and the act

• For vicarious convictions under section 34 or 149 of the Code, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the necessity of proving overt acts by accused persons in furtherance of common intention or the common object of the unlawful assembly.
• In the absence of precise evidence of individual participation, acquittal of members is not automatic, as highlighted in Lalji v. State.
• The Patna High Court, in Nagina Sharma v. State, held armed gang members responsible for deaths while attempting to disrupt the voting process.
• In a case involving Mukteshwar Rai v. State, the accused, part of an unlawful assembly, were convicted for setting houses on fire, not for murder.
• In M/s. Siyaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not enough for liability; there must be a shared common object that motivates the actions of all members.

Understanding Withdrawal from Unlawful Assembly

Key Legal Precedents

• In the case of Nawab Ali v. State, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an accused who left an assembly before a murder was committed by others.
• Similarly, in Musakhan v. State, it was reaffirmed that once a person has withdrawn from an unlawful assembly, they cannot be held responsible for subsequent criminal acts.

Case Study: Bhimrao v. State of Maharashtra

• In this case, a group formed an unlawful assembly with the intent to murder a victim. While the victim was being attacked inside, one member stood outside and did not participate in the assault.
• The Supreme Court ruled that those standing outside the house could not be held accountable for actions they were unaware of inside.

Inference of Knowledge

• The Supreme Court, in the case of Santosh v. State, mentioned that knowledge can be deduced from the actions of assembly members, even if the accused member was aware of potentially harmful acts but remained part of the assembly.
• In a scenario where some individuals in an assembly are armed and willing to use force if necessary, leading to fatalities or injuries, it can be inferred that they were aware of the potential consequences.
• In the case of Mathew v. State, the Supreme Court ruled that members of an unlawful assembly are collectively responsible if they knew that murder was likely to occur as part of the assembly's common goal.
• Similarly, in Tanaji Govind Misal v. State of Maharashtra, it was established that individuals must have knowledge of the likely outcomes of their actions to be held accountable under certain sections of the law.
• In the case of Rameshwar Pandey v. State of Bihar, all members of an unlawful assembly armed with firearms for extortion purposes were deemed to have knowledge of the potentiality of murder occurring in pursuit of their objective.

Understanding the Difference between Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 34 of the IPC comes into play when a crime is committed by multiple individuals working towards a common intention, while Section 149 applies when an offense is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in pursuit of the assembly's common object or an act that members knew was likely to occur in the pursuit of that object.
• For Section 34, the presence of an unlawful assembly is not mandatory; it can involve a simple group of individuals. In contrast, Section 149 explicitly requires the existence of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 34 assumes the presence of at least two persons even though both may not always be convicted. On the other hand, Section 149 mandates the involvement of at least five individuals, though not all five must necessarily be convicted.
• Collusion and pre-planning are essential under Section 34, but they are not obligatory under Section 149. Moreover, active participation by all parties is a prerequisite under Section 34, whereas liability under Section 149 arises simply by being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 34 primarily deals with joint liability, while Section 149 not only addresses joint liability but also establishes a specific offense.