1

2026:CGHC:14529

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 487 of 2005

Judgment reserved on 10.03.2026

Judgment delivered on 27.03.2026

1.Santram S/o Ramu Satnami Aged About 28 Years Occupation

Agriculture, R/o Village Dandan P/s Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur

2.Sukhiram S/o Ramu Aged About 26 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o

Village Dandan P/s Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur

3.Sambhu S/o Ramu Aged About 20 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o

Village Dandan P/s Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur

4.Panchu S/o Ramu Aged About 25 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o

Village Dandan P.S. Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur

5.Munni Bai W/o Sant Ram Aged About 25 Years Occupation Agriculture,

R/o Village Dandan P/s Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur

... Appellants (s)

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV Judgment

1.This criminal appeal under Section 374 (4) of Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the judgment dated 26.04.2005 passed by Additional Sessions

2

Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2004, whereby

the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following

manner:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s. 307/149 of the IPC RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.

500/-in default of payment of

fine to further undergo

additional RI for 6 months.

U/s. 323/149 of the IPC RI for 6 months

U/s. 323/149 of the IPC RI for 6 months

U/s. 323/149 of the IPC RI for 6 months

U/s. 147 of the IPC RI for 6 months

U/s. 148 of the IPC RI for 1 year.

(Fine amount has already been deposited. Both sentences are

directed to run concurrently).

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 12/10/2003 at 7:00 AM,

complainant Horilal Satnami lodged a report at Police Station Takhatpur

alleging that Appellant No.1/Santram Satnami had taken illegal electricity

connection from main electricity pole by a tree which is standing on his

courtyard and he wanted to disconnect the illegal connection, therefore,

before cutting the tree, he informed the appellants about disconnection of

electricity wire, as such he went to house of Santram and told him to

remove electricity wire from the tree standing on the courtyard. On this

Appellant No.1 refused to remove the said cable from the tree.

3.It is alleged that while the complainant and his elder brother were trying to

cut the tree, at about 8:00 AM, Setram, Sukhiram, Ballu, Panchu, Sambhu

3

and Munni Bai with an object to commit murder of the complainant reached

the house and started abusing them by saying as to why they were cutting

the tree and Santram assaulted on the head of Kunwardas with tabbal,

Sukhi, Bablu, Panchu assaulted his brother with lathi, when he tried to

save his brother then Sukhi and Santram assaulted on his right head, arm,

leg and thigh causing injuries to him. It is also case of the prosecution that

Santram and Sukhiram assaulted his wife Ramkali and sister-in-law and

incident of assault to the victims has been seen by Ramkhilawan and

Subhas. On the basis of report, FIR (Ex.P-22) was registered under

Section 147, 148, 147 and 307 of the IPC against the appellants. Injured

was sent to hospital for examination. Statements of the witnesses were

recorded. Spot map Ex.P-23 was prepared. The blood stained and plain

soils were seized. The appellants were arrested by seizure memo Ex.P-24

to P-28. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur, who in turn committed the

case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur which was

registered as Sessions Case No. 64 of 2004.

4.The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants examined 12

witnesses Horilal (PW-1), Kuwanrdas (PW-2), Ramkhilawan (PW-3),

Chain Bai (PW-4), Dr. V.K. Soni (PW-5), Harprashad (PW-6), Patwari

Lakhanlal Tande (PW-7), Ramkali Bai (PW-8), Hiradas (PW-9), Inspector J.

Toppo, (PW-10), Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW-11), Assistant Inspector J.P. Yadav

(PW-12), and exhibited the documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-42.

Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313

4

CRPC in which they denied the allegations made against them and

pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case on account of old

enmity. The appellants examined Markhande (DW-1) in their support.

5.After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge on the basis of material

on record and upon considering the statements of the witnesses has

passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the

appellants as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, the appellants preferred this Criminal

Appeal. This Court vide order dated 15.07.2005 has released the

appellants on bail.

6.Complainant Horilal (PW-01), in his statement has stated that for burn

firewood he wanted to cut the Babul tree, as such he told Santram to

remove the wire but Santram did not react, therefore, he and his brother

began to cut the tree and after some time the accused persons came there

armed with lathi, tabbal. He has further stated that Sukhiram assaulted on

his right arm with lathi, Sambhu assaulted with lathi on his thigh and

Panchuram assaulted with lathi on his left wrist. He stated that Sukhiram

assaulted multiple on his head with lathi, as a result of which he fell down

on the ground. The accused assaulted Kunwar Das due to which he

became unconscious. This witness has further stated that Chainbai and

Ramkali informed him that accused Santram assaulted Kunwardas with

tabbal and other accused assaulted him with lathi. This witness has stated

that he and his brother were admitted in the hospital for 10-12 days.

5

7.Kuwardas (PW-2) in his statement has stated that Santram was having

tabbal in his hand and Munnibai was having sword in her hand and other

accused namely Shambhu, Sukhiram, Panchu were having lathi in their

hands. This witness in his examination in chief has stated that before

assault Santram had argued and left the place but they have no idea that

he would return with his family members for assaulting the complainants.

8.Chainbai (PW-4) has supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated

the stand taken by the (PW-1 and PW-2) in the FIR.

9.Dr. V.K. Soni (PW-5) examined the Horilal (PW-1), Kunwar (PW-2),

Chainbai (PW-4) were subjected to medical examination and noticed

following injuries which are as under:-

Injured Horilal:-

(i) Lacerated wound on the right side forehead parietal area vertical 5cm

linear scalp deep.

(ii) Bruise on the right shoulder anterior vertical measuring 9x 1.5 cm.

He was complaining pain several times but there was no external injury on

his left side. The injury was caused by hard and blunt object within six

hours of his examination. For injury No.1 and 2, he advised for x-ray (Ex.P-

6).

Injured Kuwardas:-

(i) Lacerated wound on parietal area of head left side vertical 4 cmx

vertical scalp deep, horizontal hematoma of 3x3cm present.

(ii) Injured was unconscious. His pulse was regular at 78 beats per minute.

His blood pressure was 120/82. His eye was normal. The injury was

6

caused by hard and blunt object within 12 hours of his examination. He

advised for x-ray (Ex.P-7).

Injured Chainbai:-

(I) Bruise on distal posterior part of right finer 3 middle in the size 1x1cm

each vertical.

No tender. Injury caused by hard and blunt object was simple in nature

(ExP-8).

Injured Ramkali Bai:-

(I) till right supraclavicular area no external injury seen on chest, wrist on

hip (Ex.P-5)

Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW-11) examined injured Horilal in CIMS Hospital,

Bilaspur wherein he has advised him for x-ray of his head and right

shoulder. After x-ray report, he has not seen fracture on the head and right

shoulder of Horilal and submitted his reported Ex.P/41. On the same day,

this witness examined injured Kunwardas and has not seen fracture on the

head and wrist of Kunwardas and submitted his reported Ex.P/42 wherein

he has opined that injuries caused to the injured were simple in nature.

10.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellant

Santram had also suffered injuries, which has not been explained by the

prosecution. He would further submit that seizure and independent

witnesses Ramkhilawan (PW-3), Harprasad and Hiradas have reverted

their memorandum statement; therefore conviction order deserves to be

set aside. He would further submit that the doctor who examined the

7

complainant has not examined before the Court, as such the case of the

prosecution becomes doubtful. He would further submit that there are lot of

omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses,

therefore, the trial Court has erred in analyzing the evidence produced

before it. He would further submit that injuries sustained by appellants

have not been explained by prosecution which was produced before the

trial Court vide ExP-6 and Ex.P-7. The case of prosecution is based on

interested witnesses who are known to each other, as such their

testimonies contain material contradictions and improvements, hence their

evidence cannot be said to be trustworthy. Hence, prayed for setting aside

the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded under Section

307 IPC is not made out.

11.He would further submit that the prosecution is unable to prove the

essential ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC as the prosecution

is unable to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt

as the prosecution is unable to prove the intention or knowledge of the

appellants to commit such offence. He would further submit that the

medical opinion does not substantiate case of the prosecution for

conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC. He would further

submit that even offence under Section 326 is not made out against the

appellants as all the injuries are simple in nature and not grievous hurt. He

would further submit that there is no fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth

was seen and the prosecution is unable to prove the ingredients of section

147 and 148 IPC. He would further submit that the prosecution has not

8

able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was common object

of such assembly therefore, all the members of assembly cannot be held

guilty for committing the offence of rioting.

12.He would further submit that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made

out as the injuries sustained by the victims are simple in nature and the

prosecution is unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that the

appellants have any intention to commit the offence under Section 307

IPC, as such the finding recorded by learned trial Court in para-40 of the

judgment that with the common intention to commit the offence of attempt

to murder the offence was committed by the appellants is perverse,

contrary to the evidence on record, thus he would pray for acquitting the

appellants from the charges leveled against them for commission of

offence under Section 307 IPC.

13. Alternatively he would submit that the appellants have already remained in

jail during the trial as well as after conviction as detailed below and since

from appreciation of evidence, material on record, it is quite vivid that

offence under Section 307 IPC or 326 IPC are not made out, therefore, he

would pray for reducing the sentence already undergone by them.

Name of

the

accused

During trail Bail granted by this

Court

Total incar-

ceration pe-

riod

SantramFrom 13.10.2003

to 06.02.2004

total 3 months 25

days

From 26.04.2005 to

15.07.2005 total 2

months 19 days

6 months 14

days

SukhiramFrom 13.10.2003

to 06.02.2004

total 3 months 25

days

From 26.04.2005 to

15.07.2005 total 2

months 19 days

6 months 14

days

9

Sambhu From 13.10.2003

to 27.01.2004

total 3 months 15

days

From 26.04.2005 to

15.07.2005 total 2

months 19 days

6 months 04

days

Panchu From 13.10.2003

to 21.02.2004

total 4 months 9

days

From 26.04.2005 to

15.07.2005 total 2

months 19 days

6 months 28

days

Munni BaiFrom 13.10.2003

to 21.10.2003

total 9 days

From 26.04.2005 to

15.07.2005 total 2

months 19 days

2 months 28

days

14.Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that merely

because the witnesses are related, therefore, their evidence cannot be

rejected. The complainant/injured have sustained injuries, which clearly

establishes their presence on the spot. The ocular evidence is fully

supported by the medical evidence. The appellants were members of the

unlawful assembly and in pursuance of their common object, they had

assaulted the injured persons and, accordingly, each and every appellant

is vicariously liable for the act of others. It is also contended that this is not

a fit case for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by

them, inasmuch as the prosecution has proved the incident beyond

reasonable doubt by the cogent and reliable testimony of the victim duly

corroborated by medical evidence. The victims have clearly deposed

regarding the manner in which the accused assaulted the victims.

Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

15.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the

trial Court.

16.Now this Court is examining whether in the given facts situation, the

offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not.

10

17.Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the injuries

sustained by Horilal and other victims are simple in nature and the dispute

arose between the appellants and the complainants for removing the tree

which was standing on the courtyard of the victim from the evidence

brought on record, it is quite vivid that the victim Horilal (PW-1) has

requested Santram to remove the tree as the electric wire went to the

house of Santram but Santram has not reacted on his request, therefore,

Horilal and Kunwardas started cutting the tree which has provoked the

appellants to assault the victims, in such circumstances it cannot be said

that there was any intention to commit the offence which was done without

any preparation and pre-meditation and on sudden provocation between

the appellants and the victims assault was committed.

18. Even the injury which has been caused to the injured Horilal,

Kunwardas, Chain Bai and Ramkali would demonstrate that the said

injuries have been caused to the victims unintentionally as the injury which

has been caused is not on the vital part of the body which are sufficient to

commit murder of the victims. From the evidence, it is quite vivid that the

incident taken place due to sudden provocation and spur of moment on

cutting of tree which are not grievous in nature as per report of doctor (PW-

5), thus essential ingredients to attract offence under Section 307 IPC has

not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivmani and another vs.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2023 SCC

11

Online 1581. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the ingredients to

attract the offence under Section 307 IPC in following terms.

Section 307, IPC reads as under:

‘307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such

intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he

by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt

is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable

either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is

hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—When any

person offending under this section is under sentence of

imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with

death.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such

circumstances that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A

is liable to punishment under this section.

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender

years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence

defined by this section, though the death of the child does not

ensue.

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet

committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the

offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z,

he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first

paragraph of this section.

(d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and

mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not

yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z’s

table or delivers it to Z’s servants to place it on Z’s table. A has

committed the offence defined in this section.’

9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the

Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it

was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death

should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section

307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does

not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was

pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether the act,

irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge

and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position

that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not

dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage

Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya

Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra)

12

and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-

threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction

under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be

ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from

surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the

weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be

considered to infer intent.’1

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is

convinced that the Impugned Judgment of the High Court requires

to be interfered with. Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated

or severe blows having been inflicted. Even the injuries on PW1

and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an

additional point in the appellants’ favour.

20.The evidence led before the trial Court would clearly prove that the incident

taken place due to sudden provocation and spur of moment on account of

cutting of tree and the appellants who were carrying lathi which is normal

phenomena or practice in the village have committed assault by means of

lathi causing injuries to the victims which are not grievous in nature as per

report of doctor (PW-5). Thus it is quite vivid, that the prosecution is unable

to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant for commission of

offence under Section 307 IPC against the appellants, therefore, they are

deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against them for

commission of offence under Section 307 IPC accordingly they are

acquitted from the offence under Section 307 IPC.

21.But from the evidence of injured person duly supported by the medical

evidence (PW-5) that the victims have suffered simple injuries by means of

lathi and one of appellant Kunwardas became unconscious by the assault

made by the appellants, as such overt act done by the appellant will fall

within the ambit of Section 324 IPC.

13

22.From perusal of Section 324 IPC;- the essential ingredients of this Section

is hurt which has been defined in Section 319 IPC not under Section 324

IPC and it would mean “ performing an act which leads to physical pain,

injury or any disease to a person”. The Section 324 IPC further provides

that the hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using

dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt

voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means as provided in Section

324 IPC. The section 324 IPC reads as under:-

Section 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or

means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,

voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting,

stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of

offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated

substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance,

or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any

substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to

swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

23.Thus to establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following

ingredients is a must which are as follows:-

1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and

2. Such hurt was caused:

(A). By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other

instrument likely to cause death, or, (B). By fire or other heated instruments,

or (C). By poison or other corrosive substance, or, (D). By any explosive

substance, or , (E). By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to

swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or (F). By an animal.

14

24.Section 324 IPC has come up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh vs. The

State of Bihar reported in AIR 2022 SC 2817 wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held as under:-

22. In the case at hand, it is evident from the evidence of

prosecution witnesses that the two appellants have caused hurt on

the body of the informant, PW-6 by using firearm on account of an

altercation which took place between the appellants and the

informant PW-6. It also stands corroborated from the evidence of the

prosecution witness that there existed previous enmity between the

parties due to a land dispute and the same can be perceived from

their acts. Thus, the charge of Section 324 IPC stands established

against the two appellants. Once the charge against the appellants

under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm,

which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot

escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of

the Arms Act.

25.From the analysis of the above facts and circumstances, it is quite vivid

that the prosecution has rightly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt

against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC, as

such the appellants are liable to be convicted for commission of offence

under Section 324 IPC instead of offence under Section 307 IPC.

26.Further submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution

has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt regarding

conviction under Section 147 and 148 of the IPC are being considered by

this Court.

27.From the evidence of all the injured, it is quite vivid that the accused

person with common object have assaulted Ramkali, Chainbai, Kuwandas

and Horilal with lathi and presence of the all the accused at the place of

incident has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The

15

memorandum statements (Ex.P-11, Ex.P-13, Ex.P-15, Ex.P-17, Ex.P-19

further proved beyond reasonable doubt regarding their presence at the

place of occurrence. Thus it is quite vivid, that the commission of offfence

was done by the appellants with common object by using means i.e. lathi,

therefore, the appellants have rightly been convicted by the learned trial

Court under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC as the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt has proved that the appellants sharing common object

has assaulted victims by means causing simple injuries, thus all the

ingredients of Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC i.e. joining of unlawful

assembly have committed the offence of rioting and the rioting has been

done by means i.e. use of lathi have been proved before the trial Court, as

such the finding drawn by the trial Court regarding conviction of appellants

under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC does not suffer from perversity,

illegality warranting interference by this Court.

28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the provisions of Section 149

IPC in case of Zainul vs. The State of Bihar {2025 INSC 1192 } has

examined the provisions of Section 149 of the IPC as under:-

45. Albeit the essentials of Section 149 of the IPC are oft-repeated

and firmly established, they are reiterated herein for the sake of

convenience:

i. There must be an assembly of five or more persons;

ii. An offence must be committed by any member of that unlawful

assembly;

iii. The offence committed must be in order to attain the common

object of that assembly, or

iv. The members of the assembly must have the knowledge that

the particular offence is likely to be committed in order to attain

the common object.

16

46. Section 149 of the IPC stipulates that if an offence is

committed by any member of an unlawful assembly (of 5 or more

persons) in prosecution of the common object (as defined in

Section 141 of the IPC) of that assembly, or if the members of the

assembly knew that the said offence is likely to be committed in

prosecution of the said common object, every person who, at the

time of committing that offence, was a member of that assembly,

will be guilty of that offence.

47. The first limb of the provision envisages the commission of an

offence by a member of an unlawful assembly in order to attain

the common object of that assembly. Whereas, the second limb

of the provision encapsulates knowledge on the part of a member

of the unlawful assembly qua the likelihood of such offence being

committed in order to attain the common object.

48. The distinction between the two limbs of Section 149 of the

IPC was elucidated in the decision of Mizaji vs. State of U.P.,

reported in 1958 SCC OnLine SC 95. The relevant observations

are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“6. This section has been the subject-matter of interpretation in

the various High Courts of India, but every case has to be

decided on its own facts. The first part of the section means that

the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must

be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the

common object. It is not necessary that there should be a

preconcert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the

unlawful assembly as to the common object; it is enough if it is

adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order

that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed

must be connected immediately with the common object of the

unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. Even if

the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common

object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 149 if it can

be held that the offence was such as the members knew was

likely to be committed. The expression ‘know’ does not mean a

mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. For instance,

it is a matter of common knowledge that when in a village a body

of heavily armed men set out to take a woman by force, someone

is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly

must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the

second part of Section 149. Similarly, if a body of persons go

armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be equally

right to say that they have the knowledge that murder is likely to

committed if the circumstances as to the weapons carried and

other conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly clearly

point to such knowledge on the part of them all. There is a great

deal to be said for the opinion of Couch, C.J., in Sabid Ali case

[(1873) 20 WR 5 Cr] that when an offence is committed in

17

prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an

offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was

likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. That,

however, does not make the converse proposition true; there may

be cases which would come within the second part, but not within

the first. The distinction between the two parts of Section 149,

Indian Penal Code cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every

case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence

committed falls within the first part of Section 149 as explained

above or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly

knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common

object and falls within the second part.” (Emphasis supplied).

49. The expression “in prosecution of the common object” means

that the offence committed must be directly connected with the

common object of the assembly, or that the act, upon appraisal of

the evidence, must appear to have been done with a view to

accomplish that common object. In Charan Singh vs. State of UP,

reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205, this Court held that the test for

determining the “common object” of an unlawful assembly must

be assessed in light of the conduct of its members, as well as the

surrounding circumstances. It can be deduced from the nature of

the assembly, the weapons carried by its members, and their

conduct before, during, or after the incident. The relevant

observations read as thus:-

“13. […] Section 1249 IPC has its foundation on constructive

liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis

is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere

presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable

unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that

common object and that object is one of those set out in Section

141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not

proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of

Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the

assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said

persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as

specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general

proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a

person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly,

it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only

thing required is that he should have understood that the

assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts

which fall within the purview of Section 141. The word “object”

means the purpose or design and, in order to make it “common”,

it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be

common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to

say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common

object may be formed by express agreement after mutual

consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed

18

at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the

other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need

not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or

abandoned at any stage. The expression “in prosecution of

common object” as appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly

construed as equivalent to “in order to attain the common object”.

It must be immediately connected with the common object by

virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of

object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and

not thereafter. Members of an unlawful assembly may have

community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may

differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each

member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their

common object may vary not only according to the information at

his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares

the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect

of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the

same assembly.

14. “Common object” is different from a “common intention” as it

does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds

before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view

and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly

to achieve that object. The “common object” of an assembly is to

be ascertained from the acts and language of the members

composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding

circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct

adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common

object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the

incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined,

keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by

the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the

scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all

cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the

same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the

Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful

when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is

not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is

necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into

existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is

not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even

for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become

unlawful. In other words, it can develop during the course of

incident at the spot eo instanti.” (Emphasis supplied).

50. To put it briefly, Section 149 of the IPC makes all the

members of an unlawful assembly constructively liable when an

offence is committed by any member of such assembly with a

view to accomplish the common object of that assembly or the

members of the assembly knew that such an offence was likely to

19

be committed. However, such liability can be fastened only upon

proof that the act was done in pursuance of a common object.

The essentials of Section 149 were succinctly explained by the

Constitution Bench in the decision of Mohan Singh v. State of

Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 174. It reads thus:-

“8. The true legal position in regard to the essential ingredients of

an offence specified by Section 149 are not in doubt. Section 149

prescribes for vicarious or constructive criminal liability for all

members of an unlawful assembly where an offence is committed

by any member of such 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. It would thus be noticed that one of the essential

ingredients of Section 149 is that the offence must have been

committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, and Section

141 makes it clear that it is only where five or more persons

constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born,

provided, of course, the other requirements of the said section as

to the common object of the persons composing that assembly

are satisfied. In other words, it is an essential condition of an

unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more.[…]”

(Emphasis supplied).

51. Undoubtedly, once the existence of a common object

amongst the members of an unlawful assembly is established, it

is not imperative to prove that each member committed an overt

act. The liability under this provision is attracted once it is certain

that an individual had knowledge that the offence committed was

a probable consequence in furtherance of the common object,

thereby rendering him a “member” of the unlawful assembly.

29.Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dablu ETC. vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh {2026 INSC 224 } has examined the provisions of

Section 149 of the IPC as under:-

13. It is settled in law that in view of Section 149 IPC, every

member of the unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for acts

done by anyone of them to achieve a common object.

Therefore, two things are essential to attract Section 149 IPC.

The first is “unlawful assembly” and the second is “common

object”. The presence of the accused persons as part of the

unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction even if no overt

act is imputed to each one of them individually. In the case at

hand, all the accused persons had alighted from the bus

together armed with firearms, thus, they were part of the

unlawful assembly and had arrived at the bus stand with a

20

common object. The movement of the accused persons in the

above manner is sufficient enough to draw an inference that

they had a common object. Therefore, the presence of the

accused persons in the unlawful assembly to achieve a

common object makes all of them vicariously liable for the acts

of the unlawful assembly.

30.From the evidence as discussed above, it is quite vivid that the victims

have suffered injury which is simple in nature, therefore, the appellants’

conviction under Sections 323/149 cannot be held to be suffer from

perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly,

they are affirmed.

31.Considering the injuries sustained by the victim and also considering the

fact that the appellants have been acquitted from the offence under Section

307/149 IPC and they have been convicted under Section 324/149 in place

of offence under Section 307 /149 IPC and no minimum sentence has been

prescribed under Section 324/149 IPC, looking to the fact that the incident

took place on 12.10.2003 and about 23 years has already been lapsed, the

appellants have not misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, I

am of the view that for commission of offence under Section 324/149 IPC

the appellants Santram, Sukhiram, Sambhu, Panchu are sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and they are entitled to get set

off as provided under Section 428 of CrPC/468 of BNSS. So far as

conviction of the appellants namely Santram, Sukhiram, Sambhu, Panchu

are concerned, the sentence awarded under under Section 148 IPC is

reduced to 6 months.

32.So far as Munni Bai /appellant No. 5 is concerned, she remained

incarceration for 9 days during trial and she was released on bail by this

21

Court on 15.07.2005, after incarceration of 2 months and 28 days, thus she

remained incarceration for 3 months and 7 days, therefore, her sentenced

is reduced for commission of offence under Sections 323/149 and 324/149

IPC to the period already undergone by her. So far as conviction of Munii

Bai under Section 148 IPC is concerned, the sentence awarded under

Section 148 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by her as no

minimum sentence is prescribed under the said section.

33.Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are on bail. Their

bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged. They are directed to

surrender before the trial Court within two months from the date of judgment

passed by this Court to serve out the remaining part of jail sentence as

reduced by this Court. Set off, of the period of sentence already undergone

will be given by trial Court at the time of preparation of supersession's

warrant against the appellants. In case, the appellant No. 1 to 4 fail to

surrender, the Police Authorities are directed to arrest them and send a

compliance report to this Court.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

santosh