Mere presence at the scene of offence does not make one a member of an unlawful assembly — conviction requires clear proof of shared common object and reliable evidence

Zainul & Others vs. State of Bihar

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187–1188 of 2014
Decided on: 7 October 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Case Analysis

The case arose from a village land dispute in Bihar.

Two groups — the complainant party (Mahto community) and the accused party (led by Zainul, Sattar, and others) — clashed over possession of agricultural land.

During the violent altercation, two people were killed and several were injured.

The prosecution alleged that around 400–500 people formed an unlawful assembly (Section 141 IPC) armed with guns, lathis, bhallas, and swords, to forcibly take possession of the disputed land.

The accused claimed right of private defence under Sections 96–106 of the IPC, saying that the complainant party tried to harvest crops from their land and attacked first.

Trial Court & High Court Decisions

Trial Court (Sessions Court, 1989–1990)

• Convicted 21 accused for:
  • Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC → Murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly
  • Sections 147 & 148 IPC → Rioting and rioting with deadly weapons
  • Sections 307, 324, 323 IPC → Attempt to murder and voluntarily causing hurt
  • Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 → Use of firearms during the offence
• All were sentenced to life imprisonment.
• The Court rejected the claim of private defence (Sections 96–106 IPC).

Patna High Court (2013)

• Re-examined the case in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 202 of 1990.
• Upheld the conviction of 12 accused, including Zainul and Sattar.
• Acquitted 7 others for lack of clear evidence.

Supreme Court Issues

The Supreme Court examined three main legal questions:

1. Whether the accused were wrongly convicted as members of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC.
2. Whether the witness evidence was reliable and consistent.
3. Whether the statement of PW-20 (Jagadish Mahto) could legally be treated as the First Information Report under Section 154 CrPC, or was merely a statement under Section 161 CrPC.

Court’s Observations

1. Weakness in Evidence

• The Court found contradictions between eyewitness statements, medical reports, and police evidence.
• Timelines about the police arrival and FIR registration did not match.
• The FIR (Section 154 CrPC) appeared delayed, suggesting a tainted investigation.

2. Interpretation of Section 149 IPC — Unlawful Assembly

The Court analysed Section 149 IPC, which makes every member of an unlawful assembly constructively liable if an offence is committed in pursuit of the group’s common object.

Key principles stated:

• A person is guilty only if he shares the common object (Section 141 IPC).
• Mere presence at the crime scene does not make someone a participant.
• Villagers often gather during such fights as onlookers, not attackers.

The Court cited these precedents:

• Masalti v. State of U.P. (1965 SCR 133) – Need for careful proof before convicting large groups.
• Mizaji v. State of U.P. (1958 SCR 940) – Difference between common object and common intention.
• Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra (1977 1 SCC 733) – Innocent bystanders should not be punished.
• Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2013 5 SCC 655) – Mere association doesn’t prove guilt under s.149.
• Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal (2013 4 SCC 607) – Common object must be clearly proved.

3. Unreliable FIR

• The supposed FIR was based on PW-20’s hospital statement, recorded several hours later.
• Evidence showed that police already knew about the murders before recording it, so it could not be treated as a proper FIR under Section 154 CrPC.
• Instead, it was only a witness statement under Section 161 CrPC.
• The delay and procedural defects violated the fair investigation principle.

Court’s Analysis

• The prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt (a fundamental rule under criminal law).
• Witness testimonies were contradictory and biased.
• The investigation was defective, and Section 149 IPC was misapplied.
• There was no solid proof that the accused shared a common object to commit murder.

Final Judgment (7 October 2025)

• Appeals Allowed under Section 374 CrPC (Appeal from conviction).
• The conviction and sentence were set aside.
• All accused were acquitted of offences under the IPC and Arms Act.
• The Court emphasized that constructive liability under Section 149 IPC must be applied only when there is clear evidence of common object.

Takeaway Line

“Mere presence at the scene of offence does not make one a member of an unlawful assembly — conviction requires clear proof of shared common object and reliable evidence.”