LALJI & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 17-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LALJI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
JANUARY 17, 1989 
B 
[K. JAGANNA1HA SHETTY AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Indian Penal Code 1860: Sections 141, 149/302. 
of. 
Unlawful Assembly-What is-Common object-Ascertainment ;,,.-> 
Distinct offence created by section 149-Imposes constructive or 
vicarious criminal liability-Offence committed in prosecution of 
common object-Corroboration as to participation of individual mem-
bers of unlawful assembly-Not necessary-Prosecution is not obliged 
to prove overt Act of each member. 
Criminal Trial: Court cannot afford to be charitable in undeserv-
ing cases-Essentiality for peace and order in society. 
The four appellants along with seven other accused were tried 
under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal 
Code. The trial Court convicted the eight accused, including the four 
appellants, under section 302/149 I.P.C. and awarded life imprison-
ment. Appellants Nos. 1, 2 & 4 were also convicted under Section 147 
I.P.C. and each awarded one years R.I. Appellant No. 3 was also con-
victed under Section 148 I.P.C. and awarded two years R.I. The 
remaining three accused were acquitted by the Trial Court for want of 
corroboration. On appeal by the eight convicted persons the High 
Court upheld the conviction of only four appellants on all the counts 
and allowed the appeal of the other four co-accused for want of 
corroboration. 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended that appellants 
No. 3 and 4 should also be acquitted for want of corroboration as the 
Trial Court has acquitted three accused and the High Court, on appeal, 
has further acquitted four accused for want of corroboration. 
The appeal was contested on behalf of the State contending that in 
case of conviction under section 302 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. 
corroboration in case of individual accused was not necessary and there 
130 
~ 
,. 
\.
~. 
>-: 
LALJI v. STATE OF U.P. 
131 
was enough corroboration on record to prove that the accused were A 
members of the unlawful assembly at the time of commission of offence. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. Section 149 creates a specific and distinct offence. It 
imposes constructive or vicarious criminal liability of the members of B 
the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the 
common object by any other member of the assembly. [ 135B J 
1.1. It is not necessary that all persons forming an unlawful as-
sembly must do some overt acts. The section makes a member of the 
unlawfuil assembly responsible as a principal for the acts of each, and 
all, merely because he is a member of an unlawful assembly. While 
overt acts and active participation may indicate common intention of 
the persons perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful 
assembly may fasten vicarious criminal liability under the section. 
The basis of the constructive guilt under section 149 is mere 
membership of the unlawful assembly, with requisite common object or 
knowledge. lt35E-F] 
c 
D 
1.2. The tWo essentials of the section are the commission of an 
offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and that such offence 
must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that 
assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to 
E 
be likely to be committed. The common object of the assembly must be 
one of the five objects mentioned in section 141 of the Indian Penal 
Code. (134G-H] 
2. In an appeal by the persons .convicted under section 302 with 
the aid of section 149 I.P.C. the question whether a particular person 
F 
was a member of the unlawful assembly at the relevant time may be 
examined; and if it is found from the evidence on record that he was not 
a member of the unlawful assembly, he could not be convicted with the 
aid of section 149. (136F-G] 
2.1. But once the Court holds that certain accused persons 
G 
formed an unlawful assembly and an offence is committed by any 
member of that assembly in prosecution of the common object of that 
assembly or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be 
committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of 
committing that offence was a member of the same assembly is to be 
held guilty of that offence. After such a finding it is not open to the 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
Court to see as to who actually did the offensive act. The prosecution is 
not obliged to prove which sp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.