Vicarious Liability in Murder Case; Supreme Court Upholds Reversal Of Acquittal By High Court

The Supreme Court heard an appeal arising from a case involving fatal assault with deadly weapons resulting in one death and two injuries wherein the Bombay High Court had overturned the earlier acquittal granted by the Trial Court.

The incident involved the deceased, Ankush Gholap, along with two injured eyewitnesses (PW-7 and PW-9), who were ambushed by several accused persons arriving on motorbikes and armed with sattur and knives.

During the trial, the Trial Court acquitted three of the accused—Appellant Nos. 3, 4, and 5—on the ground that their direct participation in the murder had not been established. However, in appeal, the Bombay High Court, in exercise of its powers as an appellate court, overturned the acquittal of Appellant Nos. 3, 4, and 6 and convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC for murder and attempt to murder, respectively.

Aggrieved by this reversal of acquittal, the accused Nos. 3, 4, and 6 filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The main grievance of the appellants was that the essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC were not established; that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible one and, therefore, should not have been interfered with.

The appellants also pointed out alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses- inter-alia, that one injured witness, PW-7, was not in a medical fit condition to give a cogent statement on the date of its recording. It was further argued that mere presence in an unlawful assembly without any active participation or criminal intent would not attract criminal liability.

Supreme Court's Findings and Observations:

The Apex Court reiterated that the appellate interference with an order of acquittal must be undertaken with great caution, but when a trial court's findings are manifestly perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence on record, the appellate court is well within its jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions.

The Apex Court, while discussing "Proof of Common Object and Intent," observed that the prosecution had established beyond doubt that all the accused, including the appellants, arrived together with lethal weapons and made a coordinated, deliberate attack. The nature of the weapons used, along with the ferocity and precision of the attack, clearly demonstrated that the common object of the unlawful assembly extended beyond causing hurt to the commission of murder. Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC:

Reiterating the well-settled principles, the Supreme Court observed that once participation and sharing of a common object is established, each member of the unlawful assembly becomes Vicariously Liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the common object, even if he did not deliver the fatal blow.

In this case, the role and presence of the appellants-who provided vehicles to the armed assailants, assisted in confinement, and actively participated in the attack themselves, with Accused No. 6 personally causing injuries-established that they were not mere bystanders but active members of the unlawful assembly.

The Court also found the ocular testimonies of the injured witnesses (PW-1, PW-7, and PW-9) to be natural, coherent, and mutually corroborative regarding all material aspects of the case.

Regarding 'Burden of Proof', while the Apex Court re-iterated that an accused must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution had fully met this standard. The appellants failed to show any perversity or illegality in the High Court’s conclusions.

The Supreme Court has finally dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on Accused Nos. 3, 4, and 6. The Bench held that the weapons used, coupled with the manner, precision, and brutality of the assault, clearly showed that there was a shared intention to commit murder and thus satisfied the requirements of Section 149 IPC.

Coram: Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.