The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Chanda And Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr (2004), provided a comprehensive interpretation of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This decision offers valuable insights into the application of this section, which deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
Key Points of the Judgment
1. Two Parts of Section 149 IPC
- First Part: The offence must be committed in direct prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.
- Second Part: The offence must be one that the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
2. Common Object vs Common Intention
- Common object does not require prior concert or a common meeting of minds.
- It's sufficient if each member has the same object in view and they act as an assembly to achieve it.
3. Determining Common Object
- Can be ascertained from the acts and language of the members.
- Consider surrounding circumstances, course of conduct, nature of the assembly, and arms carried.
4. Flexibility of Common Object
- Can be formed at any stage, even if the assembly was initially lawful.
- May be modified, altered, or abandoned during the course of events.
5. Knowledge Requirement
- The word "knew" in the second part implies positive knowledge, not mere possibility.
6. Specific Roles Not Necessary
- It's often not possible for witnesses to describe the specific role of each assailant in a large crowd.
- The prosecution need not prove which member did which specific act.
7. Vicarious Liability
- Mere presence in the unlawful assembly can fasten vicarious criminal liability under Section 149.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Broad Interpretation: The Court's interpretation allows for a broader application of Section 149, potentially encompassing more scenarios where group violence occurs.
2. Focus on Common Object: By emphasizing the importance of common object over individual actions, the judgment reinforces the concept of collective responsibility in unlawful assemblies.
3. Evidentiary Considerations : The Court acknowledges the practical difficulties in proving individual roles in group crimes, thus easing the evidentiary burden on the prosecution.
4. Dynamic Nature of Unlawful Assemblies : The judgment recognizes that the nature and object of an assembly can change during an incident, reflecting the real-world complexity of such situations.
5. Importance of Context : By stressing the need to consider all surrounding circumstances, the Court emphasizes a holistic approach to determining the existence and nature of an unlawful assembly.
This landmark judgment provides crucial guidance for lower courts in interpreting and applying Section 149 IPC, balancing the need for justice with the practical realities of prosecuting crimes committed by large groups.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment