Holding

All the appellants were guilty of murder and attempt to murder under Section 149 IPC as members of an unlawful assembly with a common object, and their plea of private defence and the omission of injury explanation were rejected.

Summary

The case involved eight persons accused of murdering Upendra Singh and attempting to murder his brother over a disputed land. The prosecution proved that a group of more than five armed men formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of eliminating the victims, and that Rajeshwar Singh fired the fatal shots. The Supreme Court held that once a common object is established, each member of the assembly is liable under Section 149 IPC even without an overt act, rejected the appellants' claim of private defence because they had no right over the land and were aggressors, and ruled that the prosecution’s failure to explain superficial injuries on one accused did not invalidate the conviction. Consequently, all convictions under Sections 302, 307 and related provisions were affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether all the accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC despite lack of individual overt acts.
Whether the appellants were entitled to claim the right of private defence.
Whether the prosecution’s non‑explanation of injuries on an accused defeats the case.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 100, s. 101, s. 102, s. 105, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 96, s. 97, s. 98, s. 99

Subjects

unlawful assemblySection 149 IPCcommon objectprivate defenceself-defencevicarious liabilitymurderattempt to murderinjury explanation

Judgment

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 373

SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2007)
JULY 9, 2010
B
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

ss. 3021149 and 3071149- Murder and attempt to murder c
- 'Common object' - Eight accused armed with guns and
other lethal weapons - One of them fired at the victims - One
of the victims died at the spot - Another received injuries but
survived - Vicarious liability of other accused - HELD: Once
it is established that the unlawful assembly had common 0
object, it is not necessary that all persons forming unlawful
assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act
- 'Common object' does not require a prior concert and a
com_mon meeting of minds before the attack - Ingredients of
s~t49 - Explained - Both the courts below were correct in E
coming to the conclusion that prosecution had established the
case against all the accused.

ss. 96 to 102 - Right of private defence of property - Out
of eight accused armed with guns and other lethal weapons,
one firing at the person who was cleaning the plot in dispute F
with broomstick causing his death - The same accused also
fired at the brother of deceased who received injuries but
survived - HELD: Right of private defence is a defensive right
- It is neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal - Burden of
establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused, but it G
is not as onerous as that lies on the prosecution - Plea of
self-defence has rightly been rejected by trial court as the
accused had no right over the land much less a right to be
protected at the cost of life of other persons - High Court also
373 H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A rightly held that the accused being aggressors, could not
claim right of self-defence.

Criminal Law:

Non-explanation of injuries on accused - HELD: Having
B regard to the nature of the injuries, i.e. simple and superficial,
suffered by one of the accused, prosecution case cannot be
overthrown for non-explanation of the said injuries - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss.302.149 and 3071149.

c The five appellants along with three others were
prosecuted for murder of 'US', the brother of PW-4, and
attempting to murder PW-4. The prosecution case was
that a title suit between 'US' (deceased) and the accused
with regard to a plot of land in front of the house of 'US'
0 was pending. On the date of the incident when 'US' was
cleaning the said plot, accused 'RS' came there and
protested against the same. Heated arguments ensued
between them. On the instigation of another accused,
'RS' went to his house and returned with a gun and other
E accused persons who were also armed with lethal
weapons. They exchanged hot and abusive language
with 'US'. Accused 'RS' fired at 'US', who died at the spot.
He also fired at PW-4 who sustained injuries on his head
and face. Certain villagers including PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5
F rushed to the spot meanwhile and witnessed the incident.
Two of the accused died during the trial. The trial court
convicted and sentenced accused 'RS' inter alia, u/ss 302
and 307 IPC, four accused ulss 302/149 and 307/149 IPC,
and the sixth accused u/s 148 IPC. Their appeal was
dismissed by the High Court.
G
In the appeal filed by five accused, except accused
'RS', it was contended for the appellants that (i) there was
no evidence to show that there was any meeting of minds
of the appellants as to the common object to commit the
H offences alleged; (ii) when the suit relating to the dispute
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 375

of ownership of the land between the parties was still A
pending in the court, the deceased and his brother had
no business to clean the land, and the complainant party
being the aggressor, the appellants acted in self-defence;
and (iii) that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries
sustained by appellant-accused 'SJ'. s
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Section 149 IPC has essentially two
ingredients viz. (i) the commission of an offence by any
member of an unlawful assembly and (ii) such offence C
must be committed in prosecution of the common object
of the assembly or must be such as the members of that
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of the common object. Once it is established
that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not D
necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly
must be shown to have committed some overt act. For
the purpose of incurring vicarious liability u/s 149 IPC for
the offence committed by a member of the unlawful
assembly, the liability of other members of such unlawful E
assembly during the continuance of the occurrence rests
upon the fact whether the other members knew before
hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object. [para
14) (386-E-H; 387-A] F

Mizaji & Anr. Vs. State of UP. 1959 Suppl. SCR 940
=1959 AIR 572 - relied on.
1.2. A 'common object' does not require a prior
concert and a common meeting of minds before the G
attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful
assembly has the same object in view and their number
is five or more and that they act as an assembly to
achieve that object. The 'common object' of an assembly
is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the . H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. -----

A members composing it, and from a consideratiol"! of all
the surrounding circumstances. [para 16] [388-D-E]

Masalti Vs. State of UP. 1964 (8) S.C.R. 133 -. relied
on
B Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2009 (15) SCR 58 = 2009 (1 o) sec 113 -
referred to.

1.3. In the instant case, it has come in evidence,
c particularly, the testimony of PWs 4 and 5, that when the
accused persons reached the place of occurrence with
accused 'RS', accused 'SS' and 'RS' were armed with
guns and the other accused with lethal weapons, like
spear, farsa and lathi. Though it is true that as per the
D evidence, it was 'RS' who fired at the deceased and his
brother (PW-4) with his gun, yet it was clear from the
nature of the weapons that they possessed, that being
more than five in number, they did form an unlawful
assembly with the common object of eliminating the
deceased and his brother and in prosecution of the
E
common object, the deceased was shot dead and an
attempt on the life of his brother (PW-4) was made by one
of the members of the unlawful assembly, namely, 'RS'.
Thus, all of them had knowledge of the common object
of the assembly. Therefore, their case falls within
F theambit of s.149 IPC, and they are guilty of the offences
for which they have been convicted and sentenced. [para
19] [389-G-H; 390-A-F]
2.1. The right of private defence is a defensive right.
G It is neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal. The basic
principle underlying the doctrine of the right of private
defence is that when an individual or his property is faced
with a danger and immediate aid from the State
machinery is not readily available, that individual is
entitled to protect himself and his property. That being so,
i H
..
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 377

the necessary corollary is that the violence which the A
citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use
must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which
is sought to be averted or which is reasonably
apprehended, and should not exceed its legitimate
purpose. However, the means and the force a threatened B
person adopts at the spur of the moment to ward off the
danger and to save himself or his property cannot be
weighed in golden scales. Nonetheless, the exercise of
the right of private defence can never be vindictive or
malicious. It would be .repugnant to the very concept of C
private defence. [para 23-24] [391-G; 392-B-E]
Jai Dev Vs. State of Punjab 1962 SCR 489 =
1963 AIR 612; and Dharam & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 2006
(10) Suppl. SCR 391=JT 2007 (1) SC 299- relied on.
D
Laxman Sahu Vs. State of Orissa 1988 AIR 83 - referred
to.
2.2. It is well settled that the burden of establishing
the plea of self-defence is on the accused but it is not as
onerous as the one that lies on the prosecution. While E
the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the
plea of self-defence to the hilt and may discharge the
onus by showing preponderance of probabilities in
favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. F
[para 25] [392-F-G; 393-A]
Vidhya Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
1971 AIR 1857; Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
1968 SCR 408 =1968 AIR 702; The State of Gujarat Vs. Bai
Fatima & Anr. 1975 (3) SCR 933 =1975 AIR 1478; and G
Salim Zia Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 (2) SCR 394 =
1979 AIR 391 - relied on.
2.3. The plea of self-defence has been rejected by the
trial court on the ground that on the date of occurrence, H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A the appellants had no right over the land in dispute, much
less a right to be protected at the cost of life of other
persons. The High Court has observed that except for a
broomstick, neither the deceased nor any other member
of the complainant party had any weapon in their hands;
8 the deceased was not damaging the land nor was
changing its nature; no overt act at all was committed by
any of the persons on complainant's side; thus, there was
no threat to the property or to life of the appellants
necessitating exercise of right of private defence. The
C appellants were, in fact, aggressors and being members
of the aggressor-party none of the appellants can claim
right of self-defence. The appellants have failed to
establish that they were exercising right of private
defence. [para 28] [393-F-G; 394-A-D]
D 3.1. Non-explanation of injuries suffered by the
accused cannot be held as an unqualified proposition of
law that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the
same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain
the injury and on its failure to do so, its case has to be
E disbelieved or that a presumption has to be raised that
the accused caused injuries in exercise of right of private
defence. In the case of Takhaji Hiraji*, a Bench of three
Judges of this Court observed that before non-
explanation of the injuries on the persons of the accused
F by the prosecution witnesses may affect prosecution
case, the court has to be satisfied of existence of two
conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused
was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must
have been caused at the time of occurrence in questton.
G [para 26 and 29) [393-C-D; 394-E-G]
*Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing &
Ors. 2001 (6) sec 145 - relied on.
3.2. In the instant case, having regard to the nature
H of the injuries allegedly suffered by appellant 'SJ', the
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 379

case of the prosecution cannot be overthrown because A
of non-explanation of the said injuries. As per the medical ·
report, the injuries allegedly suffered by the said appellant
are simple and superficial in nature. In view of the fact that
the evidence against the appellants for having committed
the offences has been found to be cogent and B
creditworthy, it outweighs the effect of the omission on
the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. [para
30] (393-H; 394-A-C]
Sukhan Raut & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 2001 Suppl.
(5) SCR 359 = 2001 (10) SCC 284; Basisth Roy & Ors. Vs. C
State of Bihar 2003 (9) SCC 52; Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs.
Subhash & Ors. 2004 (1) SCR 1085 = 2004 (13) SCC 174;
and Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1962 Supp. (3) SCR
8; Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 1976 (4) SCC 394;
Dashrath Singh Vs. State of UP 2004 Suppl. (3) SCR 561 D
= 2004 (7) SCC 408 ; Shriram Vs. State of MP. 2003 Suppl.
(6) SCR 129 = 2004 (9) SCC 292; Vijayee Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of U. P. 1990 (2) SCR 573 = 1990 (3) SCC 190 and
Bishna & Ors. Vs. State of W.B. 2005 Suppl. (4) SCR 892 =.
2005 (12) sec 657 - cited. E

Case Law Reference:
2001 Suppl. (5) SCR 359 cited para 10
2003 (9) sec 52 cited para 10 F
2004 (1) SCR 1085 cited para 10
1962 Supp. (3) SCR 8 cited para 10
1976 (4) sec 394 cited para 10
G
2004 Suppl. (3) SCR 561 cited para 10
2003 Suppl. (6) SCR 129 cited para 10
1990 (2) SCR 573 cited para 10 !'

2005 Suppl. (4) SCR 892 cited para 10 H
SUPRUV.F COUR I ~~EPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

, 959 Suppl. SC;-{ 9/0 relied on para 14
1964 (8) S.C.R. 133 relied on para 17
·wos (15) scR 58 referred to para 18
i~62 SCR 489 relied on para 22
.)
1988 AIR 83 referred to para 23
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 391 relied on para 24
1971 AIR 1857 relied on para 25
C 1968 SCR 408 relied on para 25
1975 (3) SCR 933 relied on para 25
1979 (2) SCR 394 relied on para 25
2001 (6) sec 145 relied on para 29
0
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
227 of 2007.

From the Judgment & Order dated 03.09.2004 of the High
E Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 268 of
2001 & 284 of 2001.

P.S. Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Ravi Ch. Prakash ,
Upendra Mishra, D.K. Jha, D.K. Pandey, Manu Shanker Mishra
for the Appellants.
F
Anuj Prakash, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This criminal appeal, by special leave,
arises out of a common judgment and order dated 3rd
September 2004, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna in three Criminal Appeals No.268, 284 and 384 of 2001,
affirming the judgment and orders dated 7th June 2001 and 12th
June 2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur,
l:
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 381
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

convicting and sentencing the present five appellants for A
various offences.

2. In all, eight persons, namely, Rajeshwar Singh @ Kamta
Singh, Nagina Singh, Sheo Jee Singh @ Akshay Singh,
Awadhesh Singh, Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar
B
Singh @ Sheo Shankar Singh and Besh Lal Singh @ Bansh
Lal Singh were put on trial for having committed the murder of
Upendra Singh. Two of the accused, namely, Nagina Singh and
Awadhesh Singh died during the course of the trial and were
thus, dropped. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
convicted accused Rajeshwar Singh under Sections 302 and c
307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) as well
as under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302;
rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the D
Arms Act. Accused Sheo Jee Singh @ Akshay Singh,
Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh @ Sheo
Shankar Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with
Section 149 and rigorous imprisonment for five years under E
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Sheo Jee
Singh was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Accused Besh Lal Singh was convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section F
148 IPC and Sikandar Singh, Shankar Singh and Harendra
Singh were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months each under Section 147 IPC. The
sentences awarded to all the accused were to run concurrently.
All the six convicts preferred the afore-noted three appeals. As G
stated above, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has
dismissed all the appeals. Being aggrieved, Sikandar Singh,
Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh, Sheo Jee Singh and Besh Lal
Singh have preferred this appeal. Convict Rajeshwar Singh
seems to have accepted the verdict of the courts below.
H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the
prosecution may be summarized as follows:
There was a piece of land in front of the cattle shed of the
deceased Upendra Singh where his cattle used to graze. There
B was dispute between the parties over the land and a title suit
in respect thereof was pending. In the morning of 23rd
December 1987 at about 9-10 a.m., when the deceased was
cleaning the said land, accused Rajeshwar Singh happened to
reach there and protested against the act of the deceased,
saying that the land belonged to him. Ignoring the protest, the
C deceased continued Gleaning the land. Some heated
arguments ensued between them. Accused Nagina Singh
(since dead), also happened to be at the spot. Having got
infuriated and enraged, he exhorted Rajeshwar Singh to
eliminate the deceased. Soon thereafter Rajeshwar Singh went
D to his house and came back with a gun. He was accompanied
by Sheo Jee Singh, Awadhesh Singh (since dead), Sikandar
Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh and Besh Lal Singh, all
armed with lethal weapons such as spear, farsa and lathi. They
exchanged hot and abusive language with the deceased.
E Accused Rajeshwar Singh fired at the deceased as a result of
which he sustained injuries on· his chest, abdomen, arm and
forearm. In the meantime, Rajendra Singh (PW-4) came there
and tried to save his brother Upendra Singh but he was also
shot at by Rajeshwar Singh as a result of which he also
F sustained injuries on his head, forehead and cheek. Upendra
Singh, the deceased, succumbed to the injuries and died
instantaneously at the spot.
4. Overhearing the cries, certain villagers including Jagdish
Singh (PW-1 ), Sam hoot Singh (PW-2), Harihar Singh (PW-3)
G and Chandrama Singh rushed to the spot and witnessed the
incident. PW-5-Gupteshwar Singh (uncle of the deceased)
rushed to the police station and on the basis of his statement,
a First Information Report (FIR) was recorded at about 1.00
p.m. on the same day. The autopsy was conducted by
H Dr.Kamta Prasad Rai (PW-7) on the body of Upendra Singh.
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 383
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
He noted the following injuries: A
"(i) External injury - blood had come from both nostrils
and mouth, eyes were open (sic). 41 pellets injuries on
chest scattered all over the chest. Out of which 15 were
penetrating on left side chest, 9 pellet injuries were on left
8
arm and fore-arm.

(ii) On internal examination trachea was found full of
blood clots. Oesophagus (sic) contained blood clots 10
pellets injuries on left lung causing laceration of lung-
tissues and blood vessels inside it. 2 pellet injuries c
causing laceration and puncture of right lung tissue. Upper
portion of diaphagram on left side was lacerated and
haemorrhaging. 5 punctured wound by pellet on stomach
causing illegible of its contents i,e. un-digested food. 7
pellet injuries on heart puncturing its chamber. All 0
chambers of heart were empty and whole chest cavity was
full of blood clots."
5. Rajendra Singh (PW-4) was examined by Dr.Vijai
Pratap Singh (PW-6), who found the following injuries on his
body: E
'Three pin-head size holes over face-one over scalp, one
over fore-head and one over cheek caused by pellet
injuries. The injuries were caused by firearm within 12
hours and were simple in nature. In his cross-examination,
F
he deposed that the patient was referred to him by the
police. No pellets were found imbedded inside the
patient's wound. He has further deposed that such injury
can be self-inflicted if one undertakes the risk."
6. Appellant Sheo Jee Singh was also examined by Dr. G
Rameshwar Singh. Following injuries were found on his person:
"(i) One swelling covering around the lower 1/3 of. right
upper arm just above right elbow and fracture of underlying
bone.
H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A (ii) Complain of pain on right shoulder."
7. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was
submitted against all Othe eight afore-mentioned accused.
8. The accused denied their involvement in the murder of
B Upendra Singh. In their defence, it was stated that they had
been falsely implicated due to enmity because of long drawn
land dispute and a series of other litigations arising therefrom.
Their defence was that the suits in respect of the disputed land
and the proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
c Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) having been decided in
their favour, there was no question of their picking up the quarrel
with the deceased and in fact, it was the complainant party who
were the aggressors in which Sheo Jee Singh was assaulted
for which a case was also registered. A plea of exercise of right
0 of private defence was also raised.
9. As already stated, the trial court convicted all the
accused for the offences noted above. The appeal of the
appellants having been dismissed by the High Court, they are
before us in this appeal.
E
10. Mr. P.S. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants has assailed the conviction of the appellants
mainly on the grounds that: (i) there is no evidence on record
to show the meeting of minds of the appellants as to the
common object to do away with the deceased. It was thus,
F
argued that all the appellants cannot be held guilty for having
committed offence under Section 302 read with Section 149
IPC. In support of the proposition that at the most they could
be convicted and sentenced for their individual acts, reliance
was placed on the decisions of this Court in Sukhan Rauf &
G Ors. Vs. State of Bihar1 , Basisth Roy & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar2,
Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs. Subhash & Ors 3. and Mohan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab4; (ii) the plea of self defence raised by the

1. (2001) 10 sec 284.
H 2. (2003) 9 sec s2.
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 385
[D.K. JAIN, J.)

appellants has not been properly appreciated by the courts A
below. It was strenuously urged that admittedly, there was long
drawn land dispute between closely related parties who were
locked in a series of proceedings and litigations in respect of
the land on which the incident took place, the issue regarding
ownership of the land being still pending, the deceased and his B
brother had no business to clean the land and, in fact by their
action they instigated the appellants and, therefore, even if the
version of the prosecution is taken at its face value, that the
deceased died because of the injuries suffered in the brawl,
the complainant party must be held to be the aggressors and c
whatever the appellants did was by way of self defence and (iii)
that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the
person of appellant Sheo Jee Singh, which is fatal to the case
of the prosecution, particularly when the conviction of the
appellants is based on the evidence of the interested witnesses.
0
In support of the proposition that the omission on the part of
the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the
accused is a very important circumstance from which the court
can draw adverse inference against the prosecution for
suppressing the relevant information regarding the incident, E
reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Lakshmi
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihaf', Dashrath Singh Vs. State of
U. P. 6 , Shriram Vs. State of M. P. 7 , Vijayee Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. 8 and Bishna & Ors. Vs. State of W.B. 9 •

11. As against this, Mr. Anuj Prakash, appearing for the F
State, while supporting the decisions of the courts below,
submitted that the period of applicability of order under Section

3. (2004) 13 sec 174.
4. [1962] Supp. 3 SCR 848. G
5. (1976) 3 sec 394.
6. (2004) 7 sec 408.
7. (2004) 9 sec 292.
8. (1990) 3 sec 190.
9. (2005) 12 sec 657 .. H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A 144 Cr.P.C. having expired, the said order had no bearing in
so far as the assembly of the accused was concerned. It was
argued that the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is unimpeachable,
which prove that after altercation with the deceased, Rajeshwar
Singh went inside his house and brought with him the
B appellants, who all armed with deadly weapons, came out with
the common object to do away with the deceased.

12. We shall now proceed to assess each of the
contentions seriatim. The first question is, whether all the
C appellants can be convicted under Section 302 with the aid of
Section 149 IPC?

13. Section 149 !PC reads as follows:

"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence
D committed in prosecution of common object-If an offence
is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such
as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, every person who,
at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member
E
of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."

14. The provision has essentially two ingredients viz. (i) the
commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful
assembly and (ii) such offence must be committed in
F prosecution of the common object of the assembly or must be
such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object. Once it is
established that the unlawful assembly had common object, it
is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly
G must be shown to have committed some overt act. For the
purpose of incurring the vicarious liability for the offence
committed by a member of such unlawful assembly under the
provision, the liability of other members of the unlawful assembly
for the offence committed during the continuance of the
H occurrence, rests upon the fact whether the other members
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 387
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely A
to be committed in prosecution of the common object.

15. In Mizaji & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. 10 , explaining' the
scope of Section 149 IPC, this Court had observed thus:

"This section has been the subject matter of interpretation B
in the various High Courts of India, but every case has to
be decided on its own facts. The first part of the section
means that the offence committed in prosecution of the
. common object must be one which is committed with a
view to accomplish the common object. It is not necessary C
that there should be a preconcert in the sense of a meeting
of the members of the unlawful assembly as to the
common object; it is enough if it is adopted by all the
members and is shared by all of them. In order that the
case may fall under the first part the offence committed D
must be connected immediately with the common object
of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were
members. Even if the offence committed is not in direct
prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may
yet fall under S. 149 if it can be held that the offence was E
such as the members knew was likely to be committed.
The expression 'know' does not mean a mere possibility,
such as might or might not happen. For instance, it is a
matter of common knowledge that when in a viliage a body
of heavily armed men set out to take a woman by force, F
someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the
unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and
would be guilty under the second part of S. 149. Similarly,
if a body of persons go armed to take forci.ble possession
of the land, it would be equally right to say that they have G
the knowledge that murder is likely to be committed if the
circumstances as to the weapons carried and other
conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly clearly
point to such knowledge on the part of them all. There is a
10 ..AIR 1959 SC 572. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R.

A great deal to be said for the opinion of Couch, C.J., in
Sabed Ali's case, 20 Suth WR Cr 5 (supra) that when an
offence is committed in prosecution of the common object,
it would generally be an offence which the members of the
unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in
B prosecution of the common object. That, however, does not
make the converse proposition true; there may be cases
which would come within the second part, but not within
the first. The distinction between the two parts of S. 149,
Indian Penal Code cannot be ignored or obliterated. In
c every case it would be an issue to be determined whether
the offence committed falls within the first part of S. 149
as explained above or it was an offence such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object and falls
within the second part." ·
D
16. A 'common object' does not require a prior concert and
a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if
each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in
view and their number is five or more and that they act as an
E assembly to achieve that object. The 'common object' of an
assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of
the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the
surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course
of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. For
F determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly,
the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly,
before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for
the crime, are some of the relevant considerations. What the
common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage
G of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined,
keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried
by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near
the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in
all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object,
the same must be translated into action or be successful.
H
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS.· v. STATE OF BIHAR 389
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

17. In Masalti Vs. State of U.P. 11 , a Constitution Bench of A
this Court had observed that Section 149 makes it clear that if
an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to
be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every B
person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence; and
that emphatically brings out the principle that the punishment
prescribed by Section 149 is in a sense vicarious and does
not always proceed on the basis that the offence has been C
actually committed by every member of the unlawful assembly.

18. In Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra 12 , of which one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) was the
author had, however, relying on Masalti (supra) and a few other
0
decisions of this Court, cautioned that where a large number
of persons are alleged to have participated in the crime and
they are sought to be brought to book with the aid of Section
149 IPC, only those accused, whose presence was clearly
established and an overt act by any one of them was proved,
should be convicted by taking into consideration a particular E
fact situation.

19. Having examined the present case in the light of the
evidence on record, particularly the testimony of PW-4 and PW-
5, which has been relied upon by the courts below to come to F
the conclusion that all the appellants are liable to be convicted
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the aid of
Section 149 IPC, we are of the opinion that both the courts
below were correct in coming to the conclusion that the
prosecution has established case against all the appellants G
under the said provision. It has come in evidence that all the
appellants, when they came out of their house with Rajeshwa1

11. (1964) 8 SCR 133.
12. (2009J 1o sec 773. H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A Singh, they were armed with lethal weapons, like spear, farsa
and lathi. Though it is true that as per the evidence, it was
Rajeshwar Singh who had fired on the deceased and his
brother (PW-4) with his gun, yet it is clear from the nature of
the weapons that they possessed, as members of the unlawful
B assembly, that they were determined to teach a lesson to the
complainant party for daring to assert their right on the plot in
question. From their conduct it can safely be held that the
murder of Upendra Singh and injuries to PW-4 were
immediately connected with their common object and,
c therefore, their case falls within the ambit of Section 149 IPC
and they are guilty of the offences for which they have been
convicted and sentenced. In the FIR lodged by PW-5, it was
recited that accused Rajeshwar Singh and Sheo Jee Singh
were armed with guns while other accused were having various
lethal weapons when they arrived at the scene. Being more
0
than five in number, they did form an unlawful assembly with the
common object of eliminating the deceased and his brother and
in prosecution of the common object, the deceased was shot
dead and an attempt on the life of his brother (PW-4) was made
by one of the members of the unlawful assembly, namely,
E Rajeshwar Singh. Thus, all of them had knowledge of the
common object of the assembly. The two courts below, having
appreciated and assessed the evidence on the question, we
are of the opinion that no ground is made out for a third review
of the evidence on the issue. Hence, in our view, all the
F appellants were liable and had been rightly convicted with the
aid of Section 149 IPC.

20. As regards the plea of exercise of their right of private
defence, here again we do not find much substance in the
G submission.

21. Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an offence
which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. The
expression "right of private defence" is not defined in the
Section. The Section merely indicates that nothing is an offence
H
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 391
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

which is done in the exercise of such right. Similarly, Section A
97 IPC recognises the right of a person not only to defend his
own or another's body, it also embraces the protection of
property, whether one's own or another person's against certain
specified offences, namely, theft, robbery, mischief and criminal
trespass. Section 99 IPC lays down exceptions to which rule B
of self defence is subject. Section 100 IPC provides, inter alia,
that the right of private defence of the body extends, under the
restrictions mentioned in Section 99 IPC, to the voluntary
causing of death, if the offence which occasions the exercise
of the right be an assault as may reasonably cause the C
apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the
consequence of such assault. In other words, if the person
claiming the right of private defence has to face the assailant,
who can be reasonably apprehended to cause grievous hurt
to him, it would be open to him to defend himself by causing D
the death of the assailant.

22. The scope and width of private defence is further
explained in Sections 102 and 105 IPC, which deal with
commencement and continuance of the right of private defence E
of body and property respectively. According to these
provisions, the right commences, as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or
threat, to commit offence, although the offence may not have
been committed but not until there is that reasonable
apprehension. The right lasts so long as reasonable F
apprehension of the danger to the body continues. (See: Jai
Dev Vs. State of Punjab 13 .)

23. To put it pithily, the right of private defence is a
defensive right. It is neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal. G
There is no right of private defence where there is no
apprehension of danger. The right of private defence is
available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the

13. AIR 1963 SC 612. H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 8 S.C.R.

A necessity of averting an impending danger which is not self
created. Necessity must be present, real or apparent. (See:
Laxman Sahu Vs. State of Orissa 14 .)

24. Thus, the basic principle underlying the doctrine of the
right of private defence is that when an individual or his property
8
is faced with a danger and immediate aid from the state
machinery is not readily available, that individual is entitled to
protect himself and his property. That being so, the necessary
corollary is that the violence which the citizen defending himself
or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly
C disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or
which is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its
legitimate purpose. We may, however, hasten to add that the
means and the force a threatened person adopts at the spur
of the moment to ward off the danger and to save himself or
D his property cannot be weighed in golden scales. It is neither
possible nor prudent to lay down abstract parameters which
can be applied to determine as to whether the means and force
adopted by the threatened person was proper or not. Answer
to such a question depends upon host of factors like the
E prevailing circumstances at the spot; his feelings at the relevant
time; the confusion and the excitement depending on the nature
of assault on him etc. Nonetheless, the exercise of the right of
private defence can never be vindictive or malicious. It would
be repugnant to the very concept of private defence. (See:
F Dharam & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 15 .)
25. It is well settled that the burden of establishing the plea
of self defence is on the accused but it is not as onerous as
the one that lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the
G accused need not establish the plea of self defence to the hilt
and may discharge the onus by showing preponderance of
probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material

14. AIR 1988 SC 83.
H 15. JT 2007 (1) SC 299.
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 393,
r ..-
~ ·.J.'
.~

[D.K.'JAIN, J:]" .

on record. In Vidhya Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 16 , A
this Court had. observed that right of self def~nce should n~t'
be construed narrowly because it is a yery valuable right ana
. has a social purpose. (Also see:. Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Administration 11 ; .The.Staie of Gujarat Vs~ Bai'Fatima &'Anr18 .
an~ Salim Zia Vs. St~te of Uttar P~ad~s~rn.)~. ': ,1 1 ;, 1 ~ B j ·:.

~

26: In.order to.find' out whether right' of private defence was·
available of 'not, the occasion for
and 'the' injuries received by
~ft accused, the imminence'of th'reat to his safety, the injuries
I "'. ~ - .~- ' ,-- ' J "' . .f ~ " "

caused by the accused and c,ircumstances whether ·the
accused had time to have re~ourse to-'public·authorities·~ue c
relevant 'factors, yet the:number 'of-injuries ·is not always
considered to. be a; safe criterion ·for~ determining. who. ttie
aggressor was. 'It can also··not be·laid d6wn·a~· an'·unqualified
proposition o.f law th.at whenever injuries are'onthe body bf the
a~cused person, the pre~umpti?n··n1~5! n,,~ces:sar,ily .t>e:r~ised. ~
t~.at the accused person had acted in exercise-of 'his right of
private defence. The defence has to further establish that the
injury so caused on the accused probabilise the If.version
• . ' • ·-'
-! •
of the
.. ,::,.
... ' .... _ :.1 j . •. ~

nght of private defence. . 1, . . , . , ·<'' , '. : , •¥ , •

E
· 21: In· the light of the·afore~sfate<llegal p~sition, 'we·will
examine 'as to' whether it could be ·said that the-ap'pellarits'ha'C:I
assaulted the deceased'a~nd''cine other·'member·~of his·family
in exercise Of their right Of private defence? . ''•! . -~ , ' t<;' i· I
' . ( '· _. ' . I ·1! 1..,._·,!,;:.:,_.c"'?t_' ~;;,ff'/

· 28. The plea of,self.detence has· been rejected by the trial' F
colirt·on the ground~that oli' the date of occurrence, the
appellants had no right over the disputed land, much less a.right·
to be protected at the cost of life of.other persons::Dealing with
the question,' while rejecting the stand of the appellants, that they
. were in exclusive physical :possession· of the ·larid, the High ?
16. 1971 (3) SCC.244. :·· ~ t . .J, ·1r
1
r r· t
17. AIR 1968 SC 702.
18. AIR ~1975 SC 1478,
19. AIR 1979 SC 391. H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A Court has observed that except for a broomstick, neither the
deceased nor any other member of the complainant party had
any weapon in their hands; the deceased was neither taking
away the land nor was changing its nature or damaging it; no
overt act at all was committed by the deceased or any of the
B prosecution witnesses; no harm or injury was likely to be
caused to the appellants or the land in dispute and thus, there
was no threat to life or property of the appellants necessitating
exercise of right of private defence. The High Court held that
right of private defence of life and property cannot be exercised
c against an unarmed person. In the light of the evidence on
record, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants
were in fact, aggressors and being members of the aggressors
party none of the appellants can claim right of self defence. The
right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive
or aggression. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants have
0
failed to establish that they were exercising right of private
defence.

29. Finally, the third question for consideration is as to what
is the effect of non-explanation of injuries suffered by appellant
E Shea Jee Singh. It cannot be held as an unqualified proposition
of law that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same
occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and
on failure of the prosecution to do so, the prosecution case has
to be disbelieved. In Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing
F Chamansing & Ors. 20, a Bench of three Judges of this Court,
referring to earlier three-Judge Bench decisions, observed that
before non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the
accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect
prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence
G of two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused
was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have
been caused at the time of occurrence in question.

30. In our view, in the present case, having regard to the

H 20. (20?1> s sec 145
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 395
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

nature of the injuries allegedly suffered by the said appellant, A
the case of the prosecution cannot be overthrown because of
non-explanation of the said injuries. As per the medical report,
the injuries allegedly suffered by Shea Jee Singh were -
'swelling covering around the lower 113 of right upper arm just
above right elbow and fracture of underlying bone'. The injuries B
are simple and superficial in nature. In view of the fact that the
evidence against the appellants for having committed the afore-
stated offences has been found to be cogent and creditworthy,
in our opinion, it outweighs the effect of the omission on the
part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. We reject this C
ground as well.

31. For the afore-mentioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.

R.P Appeal dismissed. D