RAM DULAR RAI AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 27-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAM DULAR RAI AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR 
NOVEMBER 27, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 141, 148, 149, 302 and 307-Murder 
committed by unlawful assembly-Identification of only four persons of the 
unlawful assembly-Conviction under section 149 !PC for existence of 
C common object-Correctness of-Held, non-identification of other persons 
involved does not affect conviction under section 149 !PC-Held, on facts, 
there was common object to commit the crime and hence, convictions 
upheld-Arms Act, 1959-Section 27. 
D 
PW6 - informant was sleeping outside his house along with his 
son and"daughter and the other family members were sleeping inside 
the house. At about 12.30 a.m., the four appellants-accused came along 
with ten to eleven other persons armed with guns to the house of PW6 
and fired at the son and ·daughter (PW2) of PW6. The son died due 
to injuries: The occurrence of the crime was witnessed by PW I and 
E PW3 also. The defence witness DWI stated that appellant nos. I and 
4 were at their residence at the time of occurrence and hence could not 
have committed the offence. The trial· court, relying on eyewitness 
reports of PWI, PW2, PW3 and informant PW6, found all the four 
appellants guilty. Appellant no. I was sentenced to life imprisonme~t 
F for offence under section 302 IPC. Appellant nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced 
to life imprisonment for .offences under section 302 read with section 
149 IPC. Appellant no. I was further sentenced to 10 years imprisonmen~ 
for offence under section 307 IPC and other appellants to 5 years 
imprisonment for offence under section 307 read with section 149 IPC. 
G Besides, all the appellants were sentenced to 3. years imprisonment for 
offences under section 148 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 
High Coµrt dismissed the appeal of appellant no.· 1. In respect o~ other 
appellants, the High Court set aside the conviction for offences 
relatable to section 307 read with section 149 IPC and upheld rest of 
H the convictions. 
262 
RAM DULAR RAJ v. ST A TE OF BIHAR 
263 
In appeal, the appellants contended that the conviction under A 
section 149 IPC is not applicable since the number of accused identified 
by the eyewitnesses does not exceed five; that unidentified persons were 
introduced by the prosecution for conviction under section 149 IPC: 
that there is no evidence of any participation or sharing of common 
object: and that the evidence of DW-1 rules out the presen~e of B 
appellant nos. I and 4: 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 149 IPC does not require that all the five C 
persons must be identified. What is required to be established is the 
presence of five persons with a common object of doing an act. If that 
is established, merely because other persons present are not identified, 
that does not in any way affect the applicability of section 149 IPC. 
(269-A) D 
1.2 Under section 149 IPC, the emphasis is on the common 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. Where common object of an unlawful E 
assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with 
the help of section 149 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 is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that F 
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. [269-B-D) 
1.3 The word 'object, means purpose or design and in order to G 
make it 'common', it must be shared by all. In other words, the object 
should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly. i.e. 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 
no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage ·by all or a few H 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A members of the assembly and' other, members may just join and ado.pt 
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'

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.