Identification based on consistent ocular evidence in communal mob violence establishes vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.

On May 1, 1981, amid simmering communal tension in Alinagar Mohalla, Bihar Sharif, an unlawful assembly of 400–500 persons armed with deadly weapons attacked the Muslim community

The mob committed large-scale arson, looting, and brutally murdered at least eleven persons, including women and children

Survivors took shelter in the houses of Mohammad Miyan and Ulfat Miyan, witnessing the violence through holes in walls and from rooftops

Following an investigation by the CID, 63 persons were charge-sheeted

The Trial Court convicted the appellants (Ishwari Singh, Sunil Kumar, Nand Lal Yadav, Kisto Patwa, Ajay Singh, Laxman Ram, and Chhotey Kumhar) primarily and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed Test Identification Parades (TIP), non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO), and lack of specific overt acts

1. Whether the identification of the accused in court and through Test Identification Parades was reliable despite a delay of two and a half months

2. Whether the non-examination (lack of cross-examination) of the Investigating Officer caused material prejudice to the defense

3. Whether vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC could be fastened upon the appellants in a case involving a large, riotous mob

4. Whether the High Court can suo motu initiate revision proceedings against acquitted co-accused in an appeal filed by convicted persons

Section 149 of the IPC regarding vicarious liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of a common object

The Masalti v. State of U.P. rule, which mandates consistent testimony from multiple witnesses in cases of large-scale mob violence

Principles from Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar regarding identification

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra concerning dying declarations

Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, holding that non-examination of the IO does not per se vitiate a trial unless material contradictions are prejudiced

Nadir Khan v. State (suo motu power to correct manifest illegality) and Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu concerning revisional powers

The Court found that despite the riotous chaos, the survivors were natural witnesses who identified the perpetrators from close range as they were being dragged from shelters

Applying the Masalti test, the Court noted that each appellant was identified by multiple witnesses (e.g., Sunil Kumar by PW-6, 10, 13, 16; Chhotey Kumhar by PW-4, 6, 10, 17)

The Court rejected the challenge to the TIP, noting that TI parades are corroborative and the substantive identification occurred in court, where witnesses remained unshaken during cross-examination

Regarding the IO's non-examination, the Court held that since the defense failed to bring out specific contradictions between the witnesses’ court testimony and their Section 161 CrPC statements during cross-examination, the IO’s absence was not fatal

The Court concluded that the common object to eliminate a particular community was evident from the mob’s slogans and the systematic arson and killings

Invoking its inherent powers and revisional jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 482 CrPC, the Court issued suo motu show-cause notices to the acquitted persons, Raj Kishore Sao and Panna Lal, to explain why their acquittal should not be quashed