Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Rioting, Unlawful Assembly, and Murder Case: Reaffirms Group Liability Under Section 149 IPC for Mob Violence Stemming from Monetary Dispute

Court’s Decision:

• The Gauhati High Court upheld the convictions under multiple sections of the IPC, particularly those related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, and arson.
• The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for different durations:
  • Life imprisonment for murder (Section 302 IPC).
  • Six months to two years for rioting, causing injuries, and arson.
• The sentences were ordered to run concurrently (not separately).
• The court rejected the appeal, affirming that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly that committed violent acts.

Facts:

• The case dates back to August 28, 1996, when a group of 45 armed individuals attacked a community at night.
• They used bows, arrows, and guns to attack the residents, burned houses, and caused fatal injuries to three individuals, one of whom later died.
• The motive for the attack was a monetary dispute between the two groups.
• The police investigation resulted in 18 persons being charged, but five absconded, so the trial proceeded against 13 accused.

Issues:

The case revolved around four key legal questions:

1. Was the conviction under Section 149 IPC justified? (Did all accused share a common objective?)
2. Were the inconsistencies in witness statements enough to weaken the case?
3. Did the prosecution successfully establish the identity of all the accused?
4. Was the sentence proportionate to the crime?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defense’s Standpoint):

• The identification of the accused was questionable as some names were missing from the FIR.
• Witnesses gave conflicting statements on who did what, creating doubt about individual responsibility.
• The conviction under Section 149 IPC was challenged, as there was no direct proof that all accused shared a common intent.
• The defense cited Supreme Court precedents, arguing that Section 149 requires strict proof that all accused acted together.

Respondent’s Arguments (Prosecution’s Standpoint):

• Multiple eyewitnesses identified the accused and confirmed their involvement.
• The common object (revenge for monetary disputes) was evident because the accused had armed themselves before the attack.
• The defense’s claim of inconsistencies in witness statements was dismissed as natural variations in human memory.
• The prosecution cited Supreme Court cases affirming that all members of an unlawful assembly are responsible, even if only a few actively participated in violent acts.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed Section 149 IPC, which states:

If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object, every member of that assembly is guilty of the offense.

• The court ruled that individual acts do not have to be proven—being part of the unlawful assembly was enough.
• Even if some accused did not directly attack the victims, they were legally liable because they were present and part of the group.

Precedent Analysis:

The court cited several Supreme Court rulings to justify its decision:

1. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala (2011) – Confirmed that a common object can be inferred from how a group behaves.
2. Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2010) – Ruled that specific acts are not needed for conviction under Section 149.
3. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2023) – Clarified that unidentified individuals in a group do not affect the conviction of others.
4. Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) – Confirmed that not all members need to be present in court to prove an unlawful assembly.

Court’s Reasoning:

• Identification was not disputed. Multiple witnesses confirmed seeing the accused under the full moon.
• Motive was clear. The attack was linked to a previous monetary dispute between the two groups.
• Being part of the mob was enough for conviction under Section 149 IPC.
• Minor inconsistencies in witness statements were not enough to overturn the conviction.

Conclusion:

• The court upheld the conviction under Section 149 IPC.
• It ruled that the prosecution successfully established the accused’s involvement.
• The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences were confirmed.

Implications of the Judgment:

1. Strengthened Use of Section 149 IPC:
   • The ruling reaffirms that individual participation is not necessary; being part of a violent mob is enough.
2. Precedent for Future Cases:
   • Future cases involving mob violence and collective crime can refer to this judgment for strict application of group liability laws.
3. Significance of Motive:
   • The case emphasizes how monetary disputes and social tensions can escalate into serious crimes.
4. Reinforcement of Eyewitness Testimonies:
   • The court ruled that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts do not automatically weaken a case.
5. Legal Framework in Assam:
   • This ruling sets a strict precedent for handling communal violence and unlawful assemblies in the state.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Visually Challenged Workman’s Plea to Restore Withdrawn Claim, Holds That Sympathy Cannot Override Legal Procedure