Allahabad HC Detains Woman IO till 4 PM, Fines her Rs.5K for not Seizing POCSO Accused’s Mobile  ||  Allahabad HC Questions Fake Victim Age Certificates in POCSO Cases; UP Government Drafts Guidelines  ||  Gujarat HC: ‘Self-Negligence’ Bars Compensation to Heirs of Driver Killed at Unmanned Crossing  ||  UK Court of Appeal Dismisses India's Bid to Challenge Arbitration over Andhra Bauxite Project  ||  CCPA Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Penalty on Britannia Over Misleading ‘100% Whole Wheat Bread’ Claim  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds SEM Notice Asking Neha Bora to Sign Peace Bond Beyond Mere Hearsay  ||  Allahabad High Court: Rape Victims Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Lack of Medical Report  ||  Kerala High Court Quashes Guideline Restricting Production of Arrested Persons After 5 PM  ||  Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal of Two in Electric Fence Death of 11-Year-Old  ||  MP High Court Allows Tree Felling for Indore Metro, Orders Phased Cutting under Expert Watch    

Noor Fatma v. The State Government NCT Of Delhi and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Oct 2016)

Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object

MANU/DE/2814/2016

Criminal

By present revision petition, Petitioner seeks setting aside of order passed by Additional Sessions Judge discharging Respondents from offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Petitioner submitted that, Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that, act of snatching mobile phone and stealing of money constitute ingredients of offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. The above mentioned acts were in furtherance with common object of Respondents thus attracting Section 149 IPC.

Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, while dealing with applicability of Section 149 IPC observed that mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. Object should be common to the persons who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. 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 prosecution of the common object.

Act of snatching mobile phone and stealing of `50,000/- were two stand alone acts allegedly done. In so far as application of Section 149 IPC is concerned, necessary ingredient to constitute an offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC is common object. Mere presence of Respondents cannot be inferred to mean that they came as an unlawful assembly for snatching the phone and stealing the money. It cannot be contemplated from statement of complainant that, members of unlawful assembly knew that some of them were likely to commit dacoity as punishable under Section 395 IPC. Thus, it cannot be said that, there was common object of unlawful assembly to commit these two acts thus, learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that Section 395 IPC cannot be invoked as these two stand alone acts were allegedly committed by less than five persons.

Relevant : State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434

Tags : OFFENCE   PROVISION   APPLICABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved