Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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.

Latest Legal News