MUMMIDI HEMADRI AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 16-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUMMIDI HEMADRI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
MARCH 16, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s.304Part11 rlw. s.149 & s.302 r/w. s.149-Death 
caused by stabbing with knives-Six accused-Conviction of Appellants (A-
C 2, A-3 and A-6) by Courts below under s.302 rlw. s.149-0n appeal, held: 
Discrepancy in evidence as to whether Appellants were armed-However, 
they facilitated attacks by other accused by catching hold of the deceased-
ln that view s. 149 rightly applied by Courts below-However conviction 
altered to one uls.304 Part 11 rlw s.149. 
D 
Penal Code, 1860-ss.149 & 141-'Common object' and 'com.man 
intention'-Distinction between. 
Words and Phrases-'object' and 'common'-Meaning of-Jn the context 
of s. 149 !PC-Discussed. 
E 
According to the prosecution, six persons including the three 
Appellants (A-2, A-3 and A-6), formed an unlawful assembly and in pursuance 
of their common object caused death of a person by stabbing him with knives. 
Trial Court convicted the ~ppellants under s.148 and s.302 r/w. s.149 IPC. 
High Court upheld the conviction. 
F 
The pivotal question in the present appeal concerns applicability of 
G 
H 
ss.149 IPC. It was pleaded that the Appellants did not make use of any weapon 
and there was no common intention to kill the deceased and that even 
according to the prosecution the only role attributed to them was that they 
caught hold of the deceased while the other accused persons inflicted the 
injuries, therefore, Section 149 IPC has no application. 
Partly a!lowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability 
which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common 
30 
MUMMIDI HEMADRI 1·. ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
31 
object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly A 
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. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the 
accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149 IPC. 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 act is proved against a person, 
who is alleged to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he 
B 
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 C 
the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141 IPC. 
(Para 12) (36-G, H; 37-A) 
1.2. 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 D 
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 no means necessary. It 
may be formert at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the 
other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue 
to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The 
expression 'in prosecution of common object' as appearing in Section 149 E 
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 the 
object may 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 F 
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 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. (Para 121"f37-B-C-D-El 
G 
1.3. 'Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does 
) 
not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the att
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.