Accused Cannot Be Implicated U/S 149 IPC When There Is No Meeting Of Minds Regarding Any Common Object: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused cannot be implicated under Section 149 of the IPC when there is no meeting of minds regarding any common object.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that, "when there was no meeting of mind with regard to any common object then the various co-accused persons could not be implicated under Section 149 IPC."

In 1983, an incident occurred where Gopi Krishna Gupta was shot at his shop, allegedly by seven accused individuals: Gorelal, Sheo Ram, Shatrughan Singh, Ompal Singh, Rajendra Singh, Narendra Singh, and Shiv Singh. Gopi’s son lodged an FIR, accusing these individuals of attacking his father, with Gorelal allegedly firing the first shot, followed by the others. Gopi, though injured, survived long enough to give a dying declaration identifying Gorelal as the shooter.

After an investigation, charges were framed against all seven accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for murder, along with charges under Sections 148 and 147 for rioting. Shiv Singh was also charged with the murder of another person, Ram Gopal, found near the scene. The trial court convicted all seven accused for Gopi's murder and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment, though they were acquitted of charges related to Ram Gopal’s death.

The accused then appealed the trial court's decision. However, during the appeal process, four of the accused – Gorelal, Shatrughan Singh, Rajendra Singh, and Narendra Singh – died, leaving the appeals of Sheoram Singh, Shiv Singh, and Ompal Singh to be heard.

The appellants' counsel argued that Gopi’s dying declaration only named Gorelal as the shooter, and the other accused were falsely implicated. They claimed that the first informant (Gopi’s son) was not present at the scene and had fabricated the story based on enmity. They also contended that the injuries on Gopi were consistent with being shot by a single firearm, not multiple shooters, and that there was no evidence of a common object between Gorelal and the other accused, which is required for a conviction under Section 149 IPC.

The State, however, argued that even if the dying declaration only named Gorelal, there was sufficient evidence of the involvement of the other accused.

The Court held that the prosecution’s case was weakened by the dying declaration, where the deceased specifically mentioned that only accused Gorelal was present and fired upon him, while no mention was made of the other co-accused. The Court pointed out, “The prosecution realizing fully well that its case would become weak had not tried to prove the dying declaration. It was also not exhibited in the trial.”

Additionally, the Court noted that the names of the other accused were introduced by the first informant (PW-1) to settle personal scores, as the dying declaration did not include them.

Furthermore, the Court observed that all firearm injuries were of the same size, which contradicted the claim that multiple accused had fired, stating that if others had also fired, the injuries would have varied in size.

Based on these findings, the Court allowed the appeal and emphasized that since the other accused were not present at the scene and no common object or meeting of minds could be established, they could not be convicted under Section 149 IPC.

Cause Title: Gorelal Alias Shyam Narain And Others vs State of UP (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:144150-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment