Holding

Section 149 IPC applies; the appellants are guilty of murder as members of the unlawful assembly and their convictions are upheld.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants, who were part of an armed group that attacked the deceased Babu Naidu and his family, could be held liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts showed that the accused, including the appellants, arrived with deadly weapons, stabbed the deceased and several witnesses, and caused the death of Babu Naidu. The Court held that for Section 149 to apply the entire incident must be considered as a single transaction, and that each member of the unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of the common object, even without a specific finding of who inflicted the fatal blow. The evidence of multiple eyewitnesses and medical reports established the participation of the appellants. Consequently, the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants formed a common object with the other accused to commit the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Whether Section 149 IPC is attracted in the present facts despite the absence of a specific finding as to which accused caused the fatal injury.
Whether the medical and ocular evidence contradicts the prosecution's case and negates vicarious liability.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326, s. 447

Subjects

Section 149 IPCunlawful assemblyvicarious liabilitycommon objectmurderculpable homicideIndian Penal Codecriminal law

Judgment

MUNIVEL A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU

APRIL 5, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 read with Section 149.

Unlawfitl assembly-Common object of-Vicarious liability-Accused
persons accosted PWs I and 2 with deadly weapons at midnight and accused C
No. 2 stabbed PW-2 on his abdomen as a result whereof his intestines came
out-When the deceased and his wife came out followed by their daughters
PW-5 and PW-6 accused No.2 assaulted the deceased-Whoever had come
to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervene had suffered injuries at the
hands of one or the other accused persons-Occurrence resulted in the death
of" one person and sufj'ering of grievous injuries by some of the prosecution D
witnesses-Trial Court convicted the appellants under S.302 r!w S. 149-
High Court affirmed the conviction--Correctness of-Held : S. 149 provides
for vicarious liability-For the purpose of invoking S. 149 the entire incident
must be taken into consideration-If an offence is committed by any member
of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof. eve1y E
person who at the time of committing that offence was a member would be
guilty of the offence committed-It is not necessary to record a definite or
specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the
unlawjid assembly caused the fatal injury-The accused persons came with
deadly weapons at midnight-The role played by each accused .is clearly
proved by prosecution ·witnesses-Conviction upheld. F
Words & Phrases:

"Common object "-Meaning of-In the context of S. 149 of the Penal
Code, 1860.
G
The appellants along with other accused persons accosted PWs I and 2
with deadly weapons at midnight and accused no. 2 stabbed PW-2 on his
abdomen as a result whereof his intestines came out. When the deceased and
his wife came out followed by their daughters PW-5 and PW-6 accused No. 2
813 H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A assaulted the deceased. Whoever had come to the scene of occurrence and
tried to intervence had suffered injuries at the hands of one or the other
--
accused persons. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302
read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the
conviction. Hence the appeals.

B The following question arose before the Court:-
_J
Whether the appellants can be said to have formed a common object
with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to commit the alleged offences or not?

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD : I. I. For the purpose of invoking Section 149 of the Penal Code,
1860 the entire incident must be taken into consideration. The occurrence
--
resulting in the death of one person and suffering of grievous injuries by
some of the prosecution witnesses were part of the same transaction. (823-E(

D 1.2. The appellants came with other accused persons with deadly
weapons at midnight. The active role played by both the appellants clearly
stand proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. [823-F(

2. Whoever had come to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervene
E had suffered injuries at the hands of one or the other accused persons. PW-
3 and PW-IO, it is true, were related to the deceased, but, they were also
related to accused Nos. 1 and 2, as admittedly both, the families are related to
each other. It is not the case of the appellants or for that matter the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 that PW -3 and PW-IO were inimical to them. There is nothing
on record to show that they bore any grudge towards them. (823-H; 824-A[
F
3. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for vicarious
liability. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly
in prosecution of a common object thereof or such as the members of that
assembly knew that the offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of
that object, every person who at the time of committing that offence was a
G member would be guilty of the offence committed. The common object may be
commission of one offence while there may be likelihood of commission of
yet another offence, the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely
attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly. Whether a member of
such unlawful assembly was aware regards likelihood of commission of
H another offence or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
MUN IVEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.] 815

each case. Background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, A
the nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their common
object and the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual
commission of the crime would be relevant factors for drawing an inference
in that behalf. 1824-G, H; 825-A, Bl

TrilokiNath v. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCALE 76; Bishna@Bhiswadeb B
Monda/v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 9 SCALE 204 and Rajendra Shantaram
Todankar v. State of Maharashtra, 1200312 SCC 257, relied on.

4. It is also well-settled that if death had been caused in prosecution of
the common object of an unlawful assembly, it would not be necessary to
record a definite or specific finding as to which particular accused out of the C
members to the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. (825-CJ

State of Rajasthan v. Nathu, [2003] 5 SCC 537, relied on.

CRJMINAL ORJGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 510 of D
2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.2004 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 328/96.

WITH
E
Cr!. Appeal No. 287 of2006.

A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, P.V. Yogeswaran, Y. Arunagiri, P. Ramesh and
Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant.

Subramonium Prasad and Jay Kishor Singh for the Respondent. F
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered. by

S.B. SINHA, J. These two appeals arising out of the same judgment
and involving common question of law an~ fact were taken up for hearing
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. G
The Appellants herein, Munivel (original accused No.5), Kalith (original
accused No4), Selvam@Silvakumar (original accused No. I), Sasi@Sasikuma1
(original accused No.2) and Madhu @ Madhusudanan (original accused
No.3) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian
H
816 SUPRE'.\ff COURT REPORTS [2006) 3 S.C.R.

A Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life. Accused No.2 was also convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced
to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment. Accused No.3 was convicted for
an offence under Section 302 lPC and sentt:nced to undergo life imprisonment.
Accused No.4 was also convicted under Section 326 lPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accused No.5 was also
B convicted under Section 324 lPC and sentenced to undergo three years
rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were. however. directed to run
concurrently. In an appeal preferred by the afore-mentioned accused persons,
the High Court modified the judgment of the learned trial court in the following
tenns:
c "Under those circumstances, the conv1ct10n imposed by the Trial
Court on A-1, A-2 and A-5 or the oftence under Section 302 read with
149 !PC. is perfectly correct. But a slight modification could be made
as regards A-I and A-2. In the case, A-3 has been convicted only for
Section 302 !PC simplicitor. A- I has been convicted for the offence
D under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. But both A-I and A-3 have
attacked the deceased and caused injury. Though the injury caused
by A-1 is not fatal, it would be appropriate to convict A- I and A-2
for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Therdore, the
conviction imposed on A-1 and A-2 is modified to the extent that they
are convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC,
E instead of Section 302 read with 149 IPC and A-2's conviction for the
offence under Section 307 IPC is confirmed.''

The High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court in respect of other offences on accused Nos.3,
F 4 and 5 under Sections 302. 326. 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC
n:spectively.

Accused Nos. I. 2 and 3 preterred the special leave petition before this
Court, but the same was dismissed.

Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam. learned Senior Counsel and Mr. P. Ramesh,
G
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in these appeals,
raised only two contentions before us- ( i) having regard to the role played
by them, they cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 302
!PC read with Section 149 IPC; and (ii) no case has been made out even for
convicting them for offences under Sections 326 IPC and 307 IPC respectively.
H ..
MUNIVEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (S.B. SINHA, J.] 817

Before we advert to the merit of the matters, we may briefly notice the A
following facts:

P.W.1-Raja and P.W.2-Kannan are the sons of deceased Babu Naidu.
P.W.3-Venkatesan is his brother. Tmt. Balamani, who examined herself as
P.W.4, is the wife of the deceased. P.W.5-Leela and P.W.6-Gandhimathi are the
daughters of the deceased. P.W.7-Srinivasan and P.W.8-Panneer Selvam were B
the friends of the deceased. P. W. l 0-Tmt. Push pa is the wife of afore-mentioned
P.W.3-Venkatesan. The accused Nos. I and 2 were brothers, whereas accused
Nos. 3 and 5 are their associates. The mother of the accused Nos. I and 2,
Jayalakshmi, was distantly related to the deceased. The family of both the
parties were carrying on business of chit transactions. P.W.4-Balamani joined C
chit transactions carried out by the said Jayalakshmi, but allegedly did not
pay the amount payable therefor regularly. Further, allegedly, two other
subscribers introduced by P.W.4-Balamani had also not paid back the chit
amount to Jayalakshmi, as a result whereof there used to be frequent quarrels
between the parties.
D
It is further alleged that a proposal made for marriage of accused No.1-
Selvam with a girl failed. The relatives of the said girl came to the village for
inquiring about the suitability of the accused No. I. On suspicion that certain
informations were allegedly furnished by Babu Naidu, the deceased, pursuant
whereto the girl's family declined to give her in marriage with Selvam, they
bore grudge against the family of the deceased. On 16.3.1994, P. W. I was in E
his shop. He was joined by P. W.2-Kannan. Both of them were proceeding to
their houses at about 12.15 in the mid-night. When they reached near their
houses, the accused persons accosted them with deadly weapons. Selvam
allegedly shouted at P. W.2-Kannan saying that in view of their conduct, the
image of his family had been spoiled and so his entire family should be done p
away with; whereupon accused No.2-Sasi stabbed P.W.2 on his abdomen as
a result whereof he cried out. His intestines came out. Upon seeing the said
ghastly sight, P.W.1-Raja cried aloud, ran into his house and informed his
parents about the said occurrence, whereupon they rushed to the scene of
occurrence. Accused No.3-Madhu, allegedly, stabbed the deceased on his
shoulder and right thigh. When he turned round and tried to go into the G

- house by climbing the stairs, accused No. I prevented him from doing so and
hit him with a knife on his head. On hearing the cries, P.W.3-Venkatesan, a
neighbour, came out of his house along with his wife, P.W.10. They saw the
incident. When they came to the scene of occurrence, the accused No.4-
Kalith attacked him with a knife on his hand, as a result whereof P.W.3 H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A suffered an injury on the back side of his right hand, as also in the fingers.
Seeing the said assault, P.W.10 shouted, whereupon accused No.5-Munivel
cut the ring fingers of both her left and right hands. P. W. ?-Srinivasan and
P. W.8-Selvam and other persons by that time arrived at the scene. The
accused persons then fled away. The deceased and other 'injured persons'
B thereafter were taken to Virugambakkam Police Station. A First Information
Report (FIR) was lodged. Thereafter, they were referred to Royapettah Hospital.
A case was registered for offences under Sections 14 7, 148. 448, 326 and 307
of the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of the said FIR, P.W.19-Venkateswaran, the Inspector of
C Police, took up investigation and visited the scene of occurrence. He, thereafter,
received the message as regard death of the said Babu Naidu, whereafter
Section 302 !PC was also added in the FIR. Keeping in view the nature of
injuries suffered by P. W.2, a dying declaration was also recorded by a
Magistrate. During the course of investigation. the accused persons were
arrested and it is stated that on confession having been made by the accused
D Nos.J and 4. two knives marked as M.Os. 4 and 7, as well as a shirt M.0.27
were recovered from their possession. Similarly, on alleged confession made
by the accused Nos. 2 and 4, other weapons and knives marked as M.Os. 3,
5 and 6 were recovered. All such recoveries were made on 18.3.1994.

E The part played by each of the Appellants herdn and the extent thereof
were categorically stated by all the eye-witnesses 'injured persons' viz.,
P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.

As the statements of all the material witnesses are identical and
corroborative of each other, we would notice hereinbelow the statements of
F P. W. I only, which reads:

·' ...On 16.3.94, at 12 O'clock in the night. I was remaining in my shop.
At that time. mv brother Kannan who was working under a Doctor
came to me as usual to take me home along with him. Both of us were
on our way home. The five accused came running with knife. Then
G Selvam intercepted us and said, ·•you have not given the chit amount
to my mother: 1 ou have prevented the girl who was to be married to
me; I will completely destroy all of you with your family". A-2 Sasi
with the knife he was holding in his hand stabbed Kannan at the left
-
side of his abd0rnen. Because of this, my elder brother's intestine has

H
come out. 1 scrramed out and immediately ran to our up-stair. I told
...
MUN!VEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.] 819

my mother that, my brother was stabbed by them. At once, my father, A
came down from the upstair, without a shirt on him. At that time,
Madhu, mechanic, hacked him at his right shoulder and right thigh.
(He showed the length of that knife by his hand and said, he had
hacked with such a knife). A-1 Selvam with a curved knife hacked my
father at the backside of his head. My father swooned and fell down
in a pool of blood. l, my mother, my sisters screamed out; 'Oh'. At B
that time, my uncle Venkatesan and his wife Pushpa came running
from their house, nearby. The accused Kali hacked Venkatesan at his
right hand, back and fingers. My aunt Pushpa screamed out "Aioh".
At that time, Munivel cut forcibly two of the fingers of my aunt
\---
Pushpa. Sreenivasan, Selwaraj, Panneerselvam, Babu and Mohan
chased the accused who were running away. The accused got into an
c
auto at Arunachalam road and fled."

It is not disputed that P.W.3 and P.W.10 are independent witnesses. It
is also not disputed that they suffered some injury on their hands.
D
As regard the nature of injuries suffered by P.W.10 and her husband,
P. W.3 was not cross-examined.

The injuries on the person of P.W.3 were medically examined by P.W.11-
Dr. S. Loganathan. The said witness stated:
'
E
" .... On 17.3.94 at I O'clock in the night, Venkatesan, around 45 years,
was brought by P.C.8120. He stated that, he was also attacked at the
same time as has been seen in the Accident Register related to
Kannan. On examining him, he was found in his normal senses and
he could also talk. His ring finger on his right hand was seen cut.
There was an incised injury seen on his back and it measure 2 x I x F
2"CM. I sent him to the Doctor for emergency treatment. The aforesaid
injury could have been came at the time and manner said by him.
Ex.P.5 is the copy of the related Accident Register. In that early
morning at 1.05 hrs, one Pushpa aged 30 was brought by the aforesaid
Police constable and she was in her senses and she stated that she
G
was attacked as has been seen in the aforesaid Accident Register and
she could talk. The ring fingers of both of her hands were damaged.
At that time, there was simple injury with abrasion noticed on the ring
fingers. I sent her to the duty doctor for treatment. The occurrence
could have happened at the time and manner stated by her. Ex.P.5 is
the copy of the Accident Register given by me." H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A P. W. I0, Pushpa, in her evidence stated:

" ... The witness Venkatesan is my husband. In the 3rd month of 1994,
on one day, in the night, at 12 O'clock, I was keeping awake in my
house. At that time my husband was asleep. On hearing noise, we
went out. The 5 accused were having knives with them. A4 attacked
B my husband with a knife at his right hand and back. On seeing it, I
screamed. At once A5 cut my fingers forcibly with a knife. Now, I am
unable to move my right hand ring finger and my left hand ring finger.
After a while, Raja took us by an auto to the Police Station. From
there, we went to the Royapettai hospital."
.. ./
C The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants is that the doctor had not disclosed the dimension of the said
injuries. In relation to the injury suffered by P. W. l 0-Pushpa, it was also not
stated whether the injury was a deep incised wound or not. Our attention has
moreover been drav.n to the fact that according to the doctor, P. W. I0 suffered
D an abrasion. Criticism was also made to the effect that although the injured
wen: sent to the duty doctor. he had not been examined.

We may, at this juncture. notice the following findings arrived at by the
learned Sessions Judge:

" ... As Kalith had cut off the right hand ring finger of P.W.3
E
Venkatesan and hacked him on his back and wounded him; I find him
guilty of offence u/s 3:26 !PC.

The accused Munivel has attacked P. W.10 Pushpa with knife and
inflicted abrasions and cut away her ring fingers on both her hands.
F In the related copy of the Accident Register Ex.P.6, the concerned Dr.
Loganathan has failed to mention this fact and this shows, along with
certain other truths, that, he has failed to discharge his duty. Hence,
though there are no clear evidence to show that. Pushpa has been
inflicted injuries in such a manner to lose her ring fingers in both her
hands and seen in a shivering state: I find the accused Munivel to
( '1 be guilty of offence u!s 324 l.P.C."

It was submitted that in view of the afore-mentioned finding, it must be
held that no injury was caused to P.W.10-Pushpa by the Appellant-Munivel
and in any view of the matter. her statements before the court being contrary

H
to the medical evidence, the same shou Id not have been accepted by the trial
court as well :is the High Court.
--
MUN IVEL v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.] 821
It was further submitted that having regard to the fact that the Appellants A
herein had not participated in the assault on the deceased or his family
members, and further having regard to the fact that they are not related to
the .accused Nos. I and 2, with whom the deceased and his family members
were stated to be on inimical terms, they cannot be held guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302/149 !PC. The learned counsel would contend
that in view of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, it is highly B
doubtful that the Appellants herein had participated in the occurrence and
more so because the weapons seized from them had not been sent for
chemical examination. It was further pointed out that although a finger of
P. W.3 was said to have been severed, the same was not recovered by the
Investigating Officer, P. W.19. C
Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State, on the other hand, supported the findings of the courts below.

The incident in question is not denied or disputed. Death of Babu
Naidu is also not disputed. The fact that P.Ws. have received injuries on their D
persons, is also not disputed and otherwise stand proved. A finding of fact
has been arrived at by the trial Judge, as also by the High Court that the
offences, with which the Appellants herein together with other three accused
persons were charged with, have been fully proved. We have noticed
hereinbefore that the special leave petition filed by the main accused, namely,
accused Nos. I, 2 and 3 has been dismissed. E
The primary question which would, therefore, arise for our consideration
is as to whether the Appellants herein can be said to have formed a common
object with accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to commit the alleged offences or not.

All the accused persons came together. All of them were armed with F
knives. They accosted P. Ws. I and 2. They caused the death of the deceased
round about mid-night on the street. The first incident took place near the
house of the deceased. The stab injury was given to P.W.2-Kannan as a result
whereof his intestines came out. When P.W.1, on seeing this, went inside the
house and narrated the same to his parents and others, the deceased and his G
wife P.W.4 came out followed by their daughters P.W.5 and P.W.6. The deceased
was not only given a fatal blow by the accused No.2, when he intended to
save himself from further attack and was running towards the stairs, he was
prevented by accused No.1 from doing so. He was assaulted by him. P. W.3
and P.W.10 came to the scene of occurrence on hearing their cries. P.W.3,
admittedly, is a constable. It is, therefore, but natural that he sought to H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A intervene. A grievous injury was caused to him by the Appellant-Kalith.
It is also natural that seeing her husband being assaulted by a knife,
P. W. I0 would make an attempt to intervene. She was also assaulted with a
kni_fe resulting in her suffering injuries on both of her hands. We may now
deal with the criticism that the medical evidence and the ocular evidence in
B this case is wholly unwarranted. P. W.11-Dr. S. Loganathan in his deposition
referred to the Accident Register. So far as an injury received by P.W.3 is
concerned, he categorically stated that not only his ring finger on right hand
had been seen cut, he also suffered an incised injury on his back, whereupon
he was sent to the duty doctor for emergency treatment. As regards the injury
C suffered by P. W. I0, the doctor referred to the Accident Register. He found
that the ring fingers of both her hands were injured. He might have mistakenly
stated that the same appeared to him, at that time, to be a simple injury with
abrasion, but the fact remains that she was also sent to the duty doctor/
emergency for treatment, which indicates that the contents of the injury report
was correct.
D
It may be that the duty doctor had not been examined, but the same is
not very material for the purpose of the present case.

Two facts in this regard are of some significance: firstly, as regard the
nature of injuries suffered by P.W.10, she had not been cross-examined;
E secondly, P.W.11 referred to the Accident Registers wherein, as regard the
injuries suffered by P.W.3 and P.W.10, it was recorded:
"P. W3 (Venkatesan):

Nature of injury : Alleged assault as per
F and treatment AR No.029471
(State simple, grievous or
opimon reserved)

O/E Patient conscious (N.C) Right middle
Finger cut off.
G Cut injury over back of chest ahout
2" x I Y,''.
Treatment given Referred to DAUS."
P. U 10 (Pushpa):

H Nature of injury Alleged assault by known
MUNIVEL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.] 823

and treatment- person at about 12.15 a.rn. (N.C) A
(State simple, residing at the above address
grievous ·.' by (N.C) knife.
opinion reserved)

O/E Patient conscious (N.C) cut injury Left
ring finger and right ring finger. B
Treatment given Refer to DAOS."
It was, therefore, clearly established that the said witnesses suffered
injuries.

Doctor, P.W.I I, examined them at about I a.m. on 17.3.1994, that is, C
immediately after the incident took place. We do not find any material
contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. The
genuineness or otherwise of the said Accident Registers is not in question.
Correctness of the entries made therein is not in issue. Even no suggestion
has been given to the doctor that the entries made in the said Accident
Registers were not correct. D

Only because the Investigating Officer was negligent and did not make
any attempt to recover the cut fingers of P. W.3, the same by itself would not
be sufficient to discard the consistent evidences of all the eye-witnesses.

For the purpose of invoking Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the E
entire incident must be taken into consideration. The occurrence resulted in
death of one person and suffering of grievous injuries by some of the
prosecution witnesses were part of the same transaction.

The Appellants, as stated, came with the other accused persons with F
deadly weapons at mid-night. The active role played by both the Appellants
herein, clearly stand proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

We have noticed hereinbefore that not only at the dead of night P.W.I
and other witnesses were attacked, accused Nos. I and 2 also went inside the
house of the deceased and prevented the deceased from escaping from G
further assault.

Whoever had come to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervene,
had suffered injuries at the hands of one or the other accused persons. P.W.3
and P.W.10, it is true, were related to the deceased, but, they were also related
to accused Nos. I and 2, as admittedly, both the families are related to each H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A other. It is not the case of the Appellants or for that matter the accused Nos.
I and 2 that P.W.3 and P.W.10 were inimical to them. There is nothing on
record to show that they bore any grudge towards them. It is in the afore-
mentioned fact situation, the role played by the Appellants herein must be
considered.

B They did not make any attempt to stop the Appellants Nos. I and 2 from
continuing assault on the family members of P.W.2. They had not only
watched as to how P.W.2-Kannan, son of the deceased, the deceased himself,
P. W.-4 wife of deceased and the two daughters, i.e., P. W.5-Leela and P. W.6-
Gandhimathi, suffered injuries after injuries at the hands of the accused Nos. I
C and 3, but even when P.W.3-Venkatesan came to intervene, a grievous injury
was caused by Appellant-Kalith and when thereafter P. W. I0, a lady intervened,
she also had sustained injuries on her hands. It is immaterial, in the afore-
mentioned fact situation obtaining herein that P. W. I 0 suffered simple injury,
in view of the fact that whoever had come to interfere had been dealt with
one way or the other by the accused persons.
D
We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the contentions of the
learned counsel for the Appellants that the medical evidence is contrary to
the ocular evidence and Section 149 is not attracted. In Triloki Nath and Ors.
v. State of U.P.. (2005) 9 SCALE 76, this Court opined:

E "... For the purpose of attracting Section 149 of the IPC, it is not
necessary that there should be a pre-concert by way of a meeting of
the persons of the unlawful assembly as to the common object. If a
common object is adopted by all the persons and shared by them, it
would serve the purpose."

F Yet again in Bishna (Q) Bhiswadeb Mahato & Ors. v. State of West
Bengal, (2005) 9 SCALE 204, the afore-mentioned principle has been reiterated.

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides for vicarious liability. If
an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution
of a common object thereof or such as the members of that assembly knew
G that the offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object,
every person who at the time of committing that offence was member would
be guilty of the offence committed. The common object may be commission
of one offence while there may be likelihood of commission of yet another
offence, the knowledge whereof is capable of being safely attributable to the
H members of the unlawful assembly. Whether a member of such unlawful
MUNIVELv. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S.B. SINHA, J.] 825

assembly was aware as regard likelihood of commission of another offence A
or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature
.( of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their common object and
the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after the actual commission
of the crime would be relevant factors for drawing an inference in that behalf.
[See Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported B
in [2003] 2 sec 257.J

It is also well-settled that if death had been caused in prosecution of
the common object of an unlawful assembly, it would not be necessary to
record a definite or specific finding as to which particular accused out of the C
members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. [See State of
Rajasthan v. Nathu & Ors., reported in [2003] 5 SCC 537.]

For the foregoing reasons, in our view, there is no merit in these
appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed. D