Presence of accused in unlawful assembly with common object attracts vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.

On June 3, 2000, six accused persons, including the appellants, alighted from a bus at Tihuli bus stand armed with various firearms.

The main accused, Vikram (absconding), fired at the deceased, Balkishan, hitting his hand.

As the deceased fled into the house of Rattan Lal (PW-6), the accused persons chased him, dragged him to the courtyard, and shot him at point-blank range, causing instant death.

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the conviction on November 9, 2010.

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of specific overt acts, unreliable witnesses, and procedural lapses in investigation.

Whether the appellants can be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 149 of the IPC in the absence of evidence proving specific overt acts by each individual.

Whether procedural lapses, specifically the alleged non-compliance with Section 157 of the CrPC regarding the transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate, are fatal to the prosecution's case.

The court primarily applied Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which establishes vicarious liability for every member of an "unlawful assembly" if an offence is committed in prosecution of a "common object".

It also considered Section 302 (Murder) and Section 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon) of the IPC.

Regarding procedure, the court addressed Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the prompt dispatch of the police report to the Magistrate to prevent embellishments in the FIR.

The Court reasoned that to attract Section 149 IPC, the prosecution only needs to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly and a common object; the specific overt act of each member is immaterial.

It found that the act of all accused alighting from the same bus together, fully armed with firearms, and chasing the deceased into a house collectively demonstrated a clear common object to kill.

The medical evidence (PW-1) confirmed multiple gunshot entry and exit wounds and the recovery of 40 pellets, corroborating that more than one weapon was likely used during the assault.

Regarding the procedural lapse under Section 157 CrPC, the Court held that such an omission is not per se fatal to the prosecution unless it creates reasonable doubt about the timing of the FIR, which the appellants failed to establish by not summoning court records.

It held that the presence of the accused as part of an armed unlawful assembly was sufficient for conviction under Section 302/149 IPC.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the life imprisonment sentences, and directed the appellants (who were on bail) to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of their sentences.