Section 149 IPC requires proof of a shared common object or knowledge of its murderous design.

On 27 December 2017, Dinesh Birajdar and Devidas Ighe were fatally assaulted at Rajiv Nagar, Nashik.

The prosecution relied principally on four eyewitnesses, including first informant Ramesh Gaikwad, and on the recovery of a knife at the instance of accused No. 1, Ravi Nikalje

The Sessions Court convicted five accused under Sections 302 read with 149, 143 and 148 of the IPC, and acquitted them under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act

The accused appealed their convictions; relatives of the deceased appealed the acquittal under Section 135 and sought capital punishment

1. Whether the evidence proved the participation of accused Nos. 2–5 in the assault, including their liability for murder under Section 149 IPC.

2. Whether accused No. 1’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC should instead be recorded under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Whether the acquittal under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act should be reversed, or the sentences enhanced to capital punishment.

The Court considered Sections 302, 34, 143, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

It assessed whether the evidence established each accused’s participation and whether the circumstances proved a shared common object sufficient to impose constructive liability under Section 149 IPC; mere presence with the assailants did not, on the facts, establish such liability.

The Court relied on *Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra*, (2002) 2 SCC 490, in considering whether the evidence showed that the other accused knew of the assailants’ design or shared their object.

It also treated recovery of the weapon as corroborative evidence against accused No. 1.

The Court treated PW-1 as a natural and reliable eyewitness: he was with the deceased before the incident, his presence was supported by his injury, and he had promptly reported the occurrence to police; it therefore found no unexplained delay in the FIR.

His specific evidence implicated accused No. 1 and the child in conflict with law, but did not clearly identify acts by accused Nos. 2–5.

The other eyewitnesses’ statements were recorded several days later, their conduct in not promptly informing police was unexplained, and their specific allegations against accused Nos. 2–5 were not corroborated by PW-1.

The Court consequently found insufficient proof that accused Nos. 2–5 shared the attackers’ common object or knew of the design to kill.

In contrast, PW-1’s evidence and the knife recovery supported accused No. 1’s liability; the Court altered his conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

It partly allowed accused No. 1’s appeal, altered his conviction from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and maintained his life sentence and fine.

It acquitted all five accused of the offences under Sections 143 and 148 IPC.

The relatives’ appeal was dismissed: the Court found no basis to convict under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act or to enhance the sentences.