Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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