DANI SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1138 · Decided: 12-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DANI SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR 
MARCH 12, 2004 
B 
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) 
Penal Code-Section 149-Common Object-Meaning of-Formation-
Ascertainment of-Necessity of overt act-Accused chasing, catching hold of 
C and assaulting the deceased with various sharp edged weapons-Held, common 
object to kill proved-Penal Code-Section 302. 
Penal Code-Section 34-Common Intention-Meaning of-Formation-
Ascertainment of-Necessity of overt Act-Accused chasing, catching hold of 
and assaulting the deceased with various sharp edged weapons-Held, common 
D intention to kill proved-Penal Code-Section 302. 
The prosecution's case is that the accused persons intercepted and 
attacked one of the deceased persons (Dl) while he was coming back to 
his hous·e. One of the accused hurled a bomb on Dl. Dl managed to enter 
the house of his cousin. The accused also entered the house. In the 
E meantime, the other deceased (D2) also reached there and to sa~e 
themselves, Dl and D2 climbed ()n to the box room. Both deceased were 
dragged down by the accused persons and attacked with garasa, bhala, 
saif and killed. The accused persons also cleaned the place of occurrence 
and burnt the dead bodies. The occurrence was witnessed by the informant 
and the female members of the family. 
F 
The accused were charged under Sections 302/149, 201and380 IPC 
and were convicted by the Trial Court believing the evidence of the 
eyewitnesses. On appeal, High Court confirmed the conviction. 
The appellants filed appeal before the Court and contended that 
G common object or common intention of the accused had not been 
established by the prosecution. There was no evidence to show as to how 
and when the unlawful assembly was formed. Overt acts were not 
attributed to the accused persons. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
II 
1138 
---
DANI SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
1139 
HELD: 1.1. The emphasis in Section 149 IPC is on the common A 
object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful 
assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object 
and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those 
set out in Section 141 IPC. When common object of an unlawful assembly 
is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of B 
Section 149 IPC. [1148-G) 
1.2. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly 
consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained 
one or more of the common objects as specified in Section 141 IPC. It 
cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt C 
act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of unlawful 
assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only 
thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was 
unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the 
purview of Section 141 IPC. [1148-G-H; 1149-A) 
1.3. The word 'object' means the purpose or design and, in order to 
make it 'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object 
should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to 
say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may 
be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by 
D 
no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or few members E 
of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. It may 
be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression 'in 
prosecution of common object' as appearing in Section 149 IPC have to 
be strictly construed as equivalent to 'in order to attain the common 
object'. It must be immediately connected with the common object by 
virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and F 
the object must exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. 
Members of an unlawful assembly may have community of object up to 
certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the 
knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed 
in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to G 
the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which 
he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect 
of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the same 
assembly. [1149-A-D] 
1.4. The 'common object' of an assembly is to the ascertai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.