Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

There Was No Unlawful Assembly Within The Meaning of Section 141 of IPC: Supreme Court Acquits Four in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court today acquitted four individuals previously convicted of murder, citing the absence of an unlawful assembly which is a necessary precondition for invoking Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The appellants were initially convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of Sahabuddin Choudhury. The prosecution had argued that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly that committed the murder, a claim upheld by the High Court. However, the apex court identified critical legal errors in the application of Section 149 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of establishing an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC.

The case stemmed from the incident dated February 3, 2013, where the victim was allegedly taken by the accused to a local market area and murdered. The trial and subsequent high court ruling had confirmed the convictions based on purported witness accounts and the theory of ‘last seen together’. The appeal to the Supreme Court highlighted significant discrepancies and procedural errors, including the questionable reliability of eyewitness testimonies.

Unlawful Assembly Not Established: Justice Abhay S. Oka pointed out that for the applicability of Section 149 IPC, the existence of an unlawful assembly is paramount. He noted, “The High Court has not held that apart from the present appellants whose conviction was confirmed, others formed part of the unlawful assembly.”

Contradictions and Omissions in Witness Testimonies: The Supreme Court detailed procedural lapses in how contradictions were recorded during the trial. It criticized the manner in which prior statements of witnesses were handled, observing significant gaps affecting the credibility of these testimonies.

Last Seen Theory Inadequate: The Court dismissed the ‘last seen together’ argument, as subsequent events showed the victim was in the company of others post the last sighting with the appellants, thus diluting the prosecution’s claim.

Faulty Application of Legal Provisions: The judgment meticulously dissected the misapplication of Sections 302 and 149 IPC by the lower courts, which fundamentally impacted the outcome of the trial.

Decision: The bench concluded, “For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and High Court to the extent to which the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 149 of IPC, are hereby set aside.” The appellants were acquitted of all charges, with the Court ordering their immediate release unless required in connection with any other offence.

Date of Decision: May 03, 2024

Alauddin & Ors. Versus The State of Assam & Anr.

Similar News