Holding

The prosecution proved a common object to cause death, and the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC are upheld.

Summary

Five men (Surendra, Narendra, Yogesh, Amar Pal and Anil Kumar) attacked Ramchandra Singh with a burri, knife and lathis after a pending criminal dispute, inflicting multiple injuries that caused his death the next day. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, along with Sections 147/148, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed their appeals. The accused contended that the injuries did not show a common object to kill and that the case should be under Section 304 Part I. The Supreme Court examined the doctrine of "common object" under Section 149, considering the weapons used, the coordinated assault, the pre‑planned nature of the attack and the fatal injuries. It held that the prosecution had proved a common object to cause death, making the murder conviction proper, and rejected the reliance on earlier cases. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, upholding the convictions.

Issues considered

The accused acted in furtherance of a common object to cause death under Section 149 IPC.
Whether the nature of injuries and circumstances warrant conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the brother‑in‑law, Anil Kumar, is distinct from the other accused for the purpose of Section 149 liability.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304

Subjects

murdercommon objectSection 149 IPCunlawful assemblyculpable homicideSupreme Courtspecial leave petition

Judgment

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 1168

A SURENDRA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Special Leave Petitoin (Crl.) No. 2874 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
B
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

c s. 3021149 - 'Common object' to cause the death - Held:
Inference of common object has to be drawn from various
factors such as the weapons with which the members were
armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by
them and the result - The prosecution, from the entirety of the .
evidence, has been able to establish that all the members of
0
the unlawful assembly acted in furtherance of the common
object to cause the death of the victim.

Four petitions in the instant special leave petitions
along with another accused were prosecuted for
E commission of offences punishable u/ss 147, 148 and
302/149 IPC. The prosecution case was that a criminal
litigation was pending between the three accused
(appellants in SLP(Crl) No. 2874 of 2008) and the
deceased. On the date of occurrence, they along with the
F accused (appellant in SLP(Crl.) No. 3354 of 2008), who
was their brother-in-law, and another accused waylaid the
victim and assaulted him with 'burri', knife and 'lathis', as
a result of which the victim died the following day. The
trial court convicted all the five accused and sentenced
G them to imprisonment for life u/s 3021149 IPC. Orders of
conviction and sentence u/ss 147 and 148 were also
.passed. The appeals filed by all the five accused were
dismissed.

H 1168
SURENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 1169

In the instant SLPs, it was contended for the A
petitioners that from the injuries sustained by the
deceased which cumulatively resulted in his death, it was
evident that the accused did not act in prosecution of the
common object to commit murder of the victim. It was
further contendecl for the petitioner in SLP (Crl,) no. 3354 B
of 2008 that he was a resident of a different village and
there was no enmity between the deceased and him and
it could not be said that he acted in furtherance of the
common object with the other accused to kill the victim.

Dismissing the special leave petitions, the Court c
HELD:

lnthe first place, the motive for the crime has been
established. There was criminal litigation pending 0
between the deceased and accused 'S', 'N' and 'Y'. The
other accused 'A' is the bother-in-law of these three
accused. The enmity between the deceased and the
accused party stands proved. Secondly, all the five
accused were armed with deadly weapons. Accused 'S' E
and 'N' were armed with 'burri' and 'knife', respectively,
and the other three with lathis. Accused 'S' at the time of
incident, exhorted the other accused, to Kill the victim
The attack by the accused party on the victim has been
established to be pre-planned and pre- meditated. Thirdly,
F
the evidence of the doctor (PW-5), who conducted the
autopsy on the dead body, would show that the
deceased had fractured ribs - left 9th, 10th and right 10th
and both the lungs of the deceased were lacerated and
were found ruptured. The legal position is well
established that inference of common object has to be G
drawn from various factors such as the we:ipons with
which the members were armed, their movements, the
acts of violence committed by them and the result. The
prosecution, from the entirety of the evidence, has been
able to establish that all the members of the unlawful H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A assembly acted in furtherance of the common object to
cause the death of the victim. The case of accused 'A' is
not at all distinct from the case of the other accused.
There is no error in consideration of the matter by the
High Court. (para 13, 15 and 17] [1175-F.,H; 1176-A-D-G]
B
Case Law Reference:.

1979 (1) SCR 383 held inapplicable para 7

1993 (2) Suppl. SCC 515 held inapplicable para 7
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (crl.) No:
2874 of 2008.

From the Judgmer.t & Order dated 14.11.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1123
D of 1982.

WITH

SLP (crl.) No. 3354 of 2008.

E Nagendra Rai, P.H. Parekh, Subodh Markandeya, Baldev
Atreya, J.N.S. Tyagi, R.K. Rathore, Renu Tyagi Rajiv Tyagi,
Rajeev . Dubey, (for Kamlendra Mishr<J) fnr the appearing
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
R.M. LOO HA, J. 1., Five persons namely; Surendra,
Narendra, Yogesh all s/o Anoop Singh, Amar Pal s/o Jagpal
Sin~h and Anil Kumar s/o Roopchand Tyagi were tried for the
murder of Ramchandra Singh under Secti.ons 14"1,148,302
G rei:ld with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The incident occurred on May 19, 1980 at 1.30 p.m.
According to the prosecution case, Ramchandra Singh
(deceased) who was on his way on that day to Siana in a
H buffalo cart with a cement permit and some money was waylaid
SURENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 1171
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

by the accused persons; Surendra and Narendra were arrned A
with burri and knife respectivelv and other three were having
lathis with them. There was a criminal litigation pending
between the deceased Ramchandra Singh and the accused
Surendra, Narendra and Ypgesh. These three accused are real
brothers. Accused Anil Kumar happens to be their brother-in- B
law. Surendra, at the time of incident, exhorted the other
accused to kill Ramchandra Singh. In the incident,
Ramchandra Singh sustained 21 injuries. He died on the next
day.
3. On conclusion of the trial, the IVth Additional Sessions C
Judge, Bulandshahar convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Accused Surendra and Narendra were convicted under Section
148 IPC additionally while accused Yogesh, Amar Pal and Anil
Kumar were convicted under Section 147 IPC in addition to the D
offence under Secti0n 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All of
them were santenced to suffer life imprisonment for
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. Accused Sure'ldra and Narendra were
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the E
offence punishable under Section 148 IPC while accused
Yogesh, Amar Pal and Anil Kumar were sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U'lder
Section 147 IPC.
4. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the four F
convicts namely; Surendra, Narendra, Yogesh and Amar Pal
flied one appeal while the fifth convict Anil Kumar filed a
separate appeal before the High Court. Both the appeals were
heard together. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court, vide its judgment d~ted November 14, 2007, dismissed G
both the appeals.
5. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2874 of 2008 is at
the instance of accused Surendra, Narendra and Yogesh. The
other Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3354 of 2008 is at the H
instance of accused Anil Kumar.
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A 6. This Court on October 3, 2008, in both the matters,
issued notice limited to the nature of offence. The controversy
is confined to this aspect only.
7. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2874 of 2008 submitted that the
B injuries sustained by the Ramcha"dra Singh which cumulatively
resulted in his death leave no manner of doubt that the
aceoJsed persons did not act in prosecution of the common
object to commit the murder of Ramchandra Singh. Had the
intention been to commit the murder of Ramchandra Singh,
C learned senior counsel submitted, accused Surendra would
not have used burri as lathi and the other accused would not
have caused injuries on the non-vital parts of the deceased
Ramchandra Singh. In support of his contentions, Mr.
Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel heavily relied upon the
D decision of this Court in Sarwan Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab' and Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe vs. Hmlingliana
and others2 •
8.Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner Anil Kumar in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3354 of 2008
E adopted the arguments of Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior I
counsel. He further submitted that accused Anil Kumar was '
not the resident of the village where the incident occurred and
there was no enmity between him and the deceased
Ramchandra Singh. Accused Anil Kumar had come to the
F village to take his wife and merely because he was armed with
a lathi, it can not be said that he acted in furtherance of the
com1non object with other accused to kill the victim
Ramcnandra Singh.
9. Mr. Subodh Markandeya, learned senior counsel for the
G State of U.P. highlighted the injuries sustained by the deceased
0
and the consideration of the matter by the High Court with
regard to the nature of offence.

1. (1978) 1sec111.
H 2. AIR 1993 SC 401.
SURENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 1173
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
10. Dr. lnder Sen (PW4) was the doctor who attended t6 A
the deceased Ramchandra Singh immediately after the incident
when he was brought to the Primary Health Cente, Siana. He
has proved the injury report (Ex. Ka-2). The follo~ng injuries
were found on the person of the deceased:
"1. Bruise 7 cm x 4 cm on the top of right shoulder. B
2. Multiple bruises over lapping each other in an area
1Ocm x 11 cm on the upper 3rd of right upper arm in front
outer aspeci.
3. Peeling of skin in its entire thickness 5 cm x 3 cm on
the back of right forearm, 6 cm below the elbow.
c
4. Bruise 5 cm x 2 cm on the inner back aspect of the
middle of right forearm.
"'----
5. Abrasibn 7 cm x 1 % cm on the inner aspect of right
forearm, 3cm above the wrist. D
6. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/5 cm x % cm on front aspect
of right forearm, just above the wrist, with clean cut margins
and fresh bleeding.

."".. 7. 2 abrasions % cm x 1cm on the back aspect of the
middle right of the middle ring finger of right hand .
8. Swelling with tenderness 6cm x 5cm on the inner side
of right hand to the top of thumb and above the index finger.
E

Fracture suspected.
9. Swelling on first digit of right little finger. F
10. Bruise 6 cm x 3 cm on the outer aspect of left upper
arm 6 cm below the shoulder.
11. Multiple deep bruises 12cm x Bern with the peeling of
skin in an area 4 cm x 4 cm on the middle of left upper
arm front and outer aspect. G
12. Bruise below the nail of left thumb with blood oozing
from nail band.
13. Bruise 16 cm x 2 cm on the right side of back oblique
from axilla tG lower angle of shoulder wing. H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A 1,4. Bruise 8 cm x 3 Y. cm on outer aspect of back along
10 to 12th rib right side.
15. Bruise 20 cm x 3 cm in horizontal plane on left side
of back just above renal angle.
16. Multiple bruise over lapping 12 cm x 10 cm on the outer
B of right thigh above the knee.
17. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm below the left knee.
18. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm in front of right leg 11 cm below
the knee.
c 19. Lacerated wound 2 cm x Y. cm x 1 cm on the front of
·, right leg 11 cm above ankle.
...___...
20. Bruise 8 cm x 2 cm on the front of the left thigh, 6 cm
below the groin.
21. Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on the lower and of left thigh above
D
the knee."
Dr. lnder Sen (PW4) further stated that the injury Nos. 1,2,4,8,9
to 16, 19 & 20 were caused by blunt object; injury No. 6 was
from a sharp weapon and rest were by friction.
E 11. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by ~

Dr. P.C. Agarwal (PW5). He had noted as follows: :,
.....
"A stitched wound 1 Y. long on the right forearm, incised
wound on the medial aspect of right wrist. abraded
contusion 1/4" x 1/4" on the dorsal aspect of right middle
F and ring fingers, contusion 12" x 4" on the outer aspect of
right arm and top of shoulder, contusion 2 1/2" x 2" on the
right back in the lower 3rd, 3 contusions 1/2" x 1/4", 314" x
1/4", 1 Y. • x Y. • on the right knee and the 3rd of front of
right leg, stitched wound 3/4" on the upper lower third of
G front of right leg, abraded contusion 1" x 3/4" on the middle
of left leg, abraded contusion 1 Y. " x 1/2" on the front side
of the left arm, abraded contusion 2" x 1 3/4" on the outer
aspect of left arm, contusion 6" x 2" on the front and left
side of chest, contusion 3" x 1 1/2" on the left upper thigh
H
SURENDRA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 1175
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

and contusion 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" on the outer aspect of left A
middle leg."
12. In Sarwan Singh1, this Court observed that when the
injuries caused were cumulatively sufficient to cause death, it
was necessary for the Court before holding each of the
accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC B
to find that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to
cause death or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew
it to be likely that an offence under Section 302 IPC would be
committed in furtherance of the common object. The Court then
examined the above question in light of the injuries sustained C
by the deceased. In paragraph 8 of the report, the injuries have
been noticed. The Court then noticed the circumstances of the
case particularly that an unexpected quarrel took place between
the members of the same family over a dispute as to water
rights. Consequently, the Court held that the common object D
of the assembly was not to cause bodily injury sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court held that
the common object of the assembly, in the circumstances, could
only be said to cause injuries which were likely to cause death.
In Sarwan Singh1, accordingly, it was held that the offence E
would be under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
13. Sarwan Singh' has no application to the facts of the
present case for more than one reason. In the first place, the
motive for the crime in the present case has been established.
There was criminal litigation pending between the deceased F
Ramchandra Singh and the accused Surendra, Narendra and
Yogesh. The other accused Anil Kumar is the bother-in-law
of these three accused. The enmity between the deceased and
the accused party stands proved. Secondly, all the five accused
were armed with deadly weapons. Accused Surendra and G
Narendra were armed with burri and knife respectively and other
three accused were armed with lathis. Accused Surendra, at
the time of incident, exhorted the other accused, "Kill him. He
is the bone of contention". The attack by the accused party on
the victim has been established to be pre-planned and pre- H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A meditated. Thirdly; the evidence of Dr. P.C. Agarwal (PWS)
who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased would
show that the deceased had fractured ribs - left 9th, 10th and
right 10th and both the lungs of the deceased were lacerated
and were found ruptured. The legal position is well established
B that inference of common object has to be drawn from various
factors such as the weapons with which the members were
armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by
them and the result. We are satisfied that the prosecution, from
the entirety of the evidence, has been able to establish that all
c the members of the unlawful assembly acted in furtherance of
the common object to cause the death of Ramchandra Singh.
14. In, what we have indicated above, the decision of this
Court in the case of Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe2 also has
no application to the facts of the present case.
D 15. The case of the accused Anil Kumar is not at all distinct
from the case of the other accused as has been sought to be
canvassed by Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel.
16. The High Court, while dealing with the question of
E nature of offence, observed:
'The last point argued by learned counsel for the appellants
was that this was not the case under Section 302 IPC but
circumstances and nature of injuries show that this was a
case under Section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Cod.e. But
we see no force in this contention because there was
F
enmity between the parties and the attack was well
planned. This was not a case of sudden provocation. The
injury report Ex. Ka-2 shows that deceased was brutally
and badly assaulted by the accused persons and
cumulative effect of injuries was the cause of death."
G
17. We find no error in consideration of the matter by the
High Court.
18. Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
R.P. Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
H