Section 149 IPC convictions upheld where an armed group jointly pursued and shot the victim.

On 18 May 2016, Kallu Ghosh was shot and fatally injured in Dhatkidih, Jamshedpur.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants and others, armed with firearms, pursued and shot him; Kallu later died at hospital.

The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, evidence that Kallu identified his assailants while being taken to hospital, recovered cartridge cases and blood-stained soil, and the post-mortem findings attributing death to firearm injuries.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and imposed the sentences set out in the judgment.

The appellants challenged the convictions, disputing the eyewitness accounts, the proof of common object, and the sufficiency of the evidence.

1. Whether the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence disclosed an error of law warranting appellate interference.

2. Whether the prosecution evidence established that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering Kallu Ghosh, supporting their convictions under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

The Court considered Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, under which the appellants had been convicted.

Section 149 IPC provides for constructive liability for an offence committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object, or an offence the members knew to be likely to be committed; Section 148 concerns rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, and Section 27 of the Arms Act addresses use of arms in contravention of the Act.

The judgment cites no judicial precedents and does not separately set out the statutory tests.

The Court accepted the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 as consistent evidence that, after hearing gunshots, they saw the deceased staggering and the accused armed with pistols, fleeing and firing.

It also relied on testimony that the deceased identified his assailants while being taken to hospital, and on the post-mortem evidence that firearm injuries caused death, with two bullets recovered from the body.

From the manner of the attack and the accused’s conduct, the Court concluded that they shared the common object of murdering the deceased; it therefore rejected the challenge to their liability under Section 149 IPC and found no legal error requiring interference.

Both appeals were dismissed, and the Court noted that the appellants were in custody.