Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC attaches to assembly members facilitating crime without committing overt acts.

The incident occurred on 05.09.1982 due to a land dispute between the deceased, Chandra Prakash Tiwari, and the accused.

Radhe Krishna (A13) allegedly lured the deceased from his house under a false pretext, after which 12–13 accused persons surrounded and assaulted him with lathis.

Ram Pratap (A1) was allegedly present with a firearm, threatening witnesses to prevent intervention.

The deceased succumbed to injuries, and his body was later recovered from a nearby field.

The Trial Court, via judgment dated 18.07.1983, convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149, and 201/149 of the IPC.

During the pendency of the appeal, six appellants died, causing their appeals to abate.

One appellant, Rakesh Kumar (A3), was found to be a juvenile at the time of the occurrence.

1. Whether the ocular testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 were reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction despite allegations of prior enmity and minor discrepancies.

2. Whether accused A1 (Ram Pratap) could be held vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC in the absence of an overt act of physical assault.

3. Whether the charge under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence) was legally sustainable based on the recovery of the body from a different location.

4. What is the appropriate legal course for appellant A3, who was a juvenile at the time of the offense, considering the passage of four decades.

The Court primarily applied the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC and the definition of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC, relying on Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018) to establish that a member is liable if they share a common object or know the offense is likely to be committed.

For the charge of screening offenders, the Court applied Section 201 IPC, guided by Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra (2007) and Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1952), which require proof of the intent to cause disappearance of evidence beyond mere suspicion.

The Court also upheld the evidentiary value of an injured witness (PW-3), noting that their presence is naturally guaranteed.

The Court found the ocular evidence of PW-1, PW-2 (independent witness), and PW-3 (injured witness) credible and consistent regarding the assault and the presence of the accused.

It rejected the defense's argument regarding visibility obstructions at the site, noting that the place of assault was within the line of sight of the witnesses.

Regarding A1, the Court held that although he did not physically strike the victim, his presence with a firearm to threaten witnesses facilitated the common object of the unlawful assembly, satisfying the criteria for vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.

Conversely, the Court found the Section 201 IPC conviction unsustainable because no witness saw the accused moving the body, and the post-mortem report showed no dragging injuries; mere discovery of the body in a different field did not constitute proof of "causing disappearance of evidence" by the accused.

Regarding A3’s juvenility, the Court noted he was 14 at the time of the offense and, after 40 years, sending him to a reformatory was impractical; hence, his 11 months of prior incarceration was deemed sufficient.

It affirmed the convictions of A1, A3, A4, A7, A8, A11, and A12 under Sections 302/149, 147, 325/149, and 323/149 IPC, and A1’s conviction under Section 148 IPC.

The Court set aside the convictions under Section 201/149 IPC for all appellants due to lack of evidence.

For A3 (juvenile), the sentence was restricted to the period already undergone.

The remaining surviving appellants (A1, A4, A7, A8, A11, A12) were ordered to surrender within 15 days to serve their life sentences.