Section 149 IPC conviction is unsustainable absent proof of membership in an unlawful assembly and shared common object.

The case arises from "Operation Black Thunder," a 2010 police action against a Maoist training camp in the Saranda Forest

During an encounter on September 26, 2010, a CRPF Kobra Jawan was killed, and his INSAS rifle was looted

On September 27, 2010, the police apprehended the Appellant and a co-accused (Dursona Bodra) near the forest

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant was found with explosive substances and wire, and had confessed to assisting the extremists

The Trial Court acquitted three co-accused but convicted the Appellant under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 353/149, 379/149, and 148 of the IPC, primarily distinguishing his case based on the alleged recovery of explosives

Notably, the Trial Court simultaneously acquitted the Appellant of charges under the UAP Act, CLA Act, and Explosive Substances Act

The court examined Section 149 of the IPC, which establishes vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in prosecution of a common object

It also considered the evidentiary requirements for "common object" and the principle of parity in the treatment of co-accused when evidence is indistinguishable

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning contradictory and based on "conjecture and surmises"

Although the Trial Court convicted the Appellant by distinguishing him from the acquitted co-accused on the grounds of possessing explosives, it had simultaneously acquitted him of the substantive charges under the Explosive Substances Act

Furthermore, the Appellant was acquitted of being a member of the banned MCC organization (UAP Act/CLA Act), which fundamentally undermined the prosecution's claim that he was part of an "unlawful assembly" of Maoists sharing a common object to attack police

The Court noted that the Appellant was a local villager arrested 4km away from the actual encounter site [para. 24], no firearms were recovered from him [para. 18], and no witness attributed any specific overt act to him during the firing

Consequently, mere presence near the area on the morning following the encounter did not satisfy the legal requirements for conviction under Section 149 IPC

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2018 and the order of sentence dated 01.09.2018, and directed the Appellant’s immediate release