Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides 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 person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. "
Ingredients- Following are the ingredients of this offence ( i.e., offence committed in prosecution of common object under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code) -
1. Some offence must be committed by any member of an unlawful assembly; and
2. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
Also read - 9 Major Differences Between Common Intention And Common Object With Landmark Judgements.
Landmark Judgements on Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ingredients may be explained as follows
1. Offence committed by members of unlawful assembly- The Supreme Court in Yunis Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 Cri. L.J. 817 (S.C.), held that presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. The fact that accused was a member of unlawful assembly and his presence at place of occurrence is sufficient to hold him guilty even if no overt act is imputed to him. However mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless he was actuated by common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141.
Section 141 provides that -
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -
1. To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legis¬lature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
2. To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
3. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
4. By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
5. By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assem¬bled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
2. (A) In prosecution of the common object - " In prosecution of the common object " do not mean " during the prosecution of the common object of the assembly. " The words " in prosecution of the common object " show that the offence committed was immediately connected with the common object of the assembly, of which the accused were members. The act must be such as have been done with a view to accomplish the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. The words " in prosecution of the common object " have to be strictly construed as equivalent to " in order to attain common object."
(B). Members knew to be likely - The second part relates to a situation where the members of the assembly knew that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. A thing is likely to happen only when it will probably happen or may very well happen. The word ' knew ' indicates a state of mind at the time of commission of an offence and not latter. Knowledge must be proved. The word ' likely ' means some clear evidence that the unlawful assembly had such a knowledge. The prosecution must prove that the accused not only knew that the offence was likely to be committed but also that it was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.
(C). Five or more persons - For the application of this section is essential to prove that there were at least five persons sharing the common object. The presence of five or more persons must be unquestionably proved although it may happen that some of them are identifiable or that their identity was doubtful. In such cases even less than five persons may be convicted. But if it is doubtful that there were at least five persons no conviction is possible under this section.
References -
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal- THE INDIAN PENAL CODE-33rd Edition
Criminal Law: Cases and Materials - Sixth Edition - K.D.Gaur
Prof. S.N.Misra - INDIAN PENAL CODE- 15th Edition
Like this post? Want more posts like this? Suggest our next post via comments below…
