Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 29) upheld the conviction of three individuals who were part of a six-member group involved in a fatal assault on the deceased. The Court held that, regardless of their individual acts, once they shared a common object and participated with overt intent as members of an unlawful assembly, they were vicariously liable for an offence under Section 149 IPC.

“it is not necessary for each member of the unlawful assembly to have committed a specific overt act. Once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.”, the court said, placing reliance on Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202.

A bench of Justices PK Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's decision, which set aside the acquittal of the appellants-accused persons in a premeditated assault that led to the death of one person and grievous injury to two others. The attack, carried out by a group of six men armed with sharp-edged weapons, was allegedly motivated by prior enmity. The Appellants, though, didn't inflict the fatal blow but played a crucial role in facilitating the attack.

“In the present case, the evidence conclusively establishes that all three appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that carried out a premeditated and violent attack resulting in the death of the deceased and grievous injuries to PW-7 and PW-9. The role of appellant (accused no. 6) in inflicting serious injuries upon PW-7 demonstrates his direct involvement and awareness of the collective design. The appellant no. 1 and 2 (accused no. 3 and 4), who transported the armed assailants to the scene, played an equally crucial role by facilitating the attack and ensuring its execution in furtherance of the common object.”, the court observed.

“The cumulative evidence clearly shows that the appellants were not passive spectators but active participants and facilitators in a deliberate and planned assault. Their conduct and presence at the scene, in concert with the armed co-accused persons, establish their common intention and vicarious liability under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.”, the court added.

The Court held that the Appellants' participation was not just a mere spectator to the crime but proved their active participation in furtherance of the common object.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: HARIBHAU @ BHAUSAHEB DINKAR KHARUSE & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1043

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sewa Singh Sahu, Adv. Ms. Shalu Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Arun Hirulkar, Adv. Ms. Archy Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.