Common object in group assault confined to grievous hurt; murder convictions set aside and unreliable evidence led to acquittal of one accused.

Where the evidence showed a group assault but only two accused caused injuries to the deceased, the fatal result was due to the cumulative effect of injuries not individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the surrounding circumstances did not establish a common object to kill. Convictions under Sections 302/149 and 302 IPC were therefore unsustainable, and liability was confined to grievous hurt under Section 326/149 IPC. The evidence against A-5 was inconsistent and unreliable, with no satisfactory proof of active participation in the assault, so the reversal of his acquittal was unjustified and his acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, or only of causing grievous hurt, and whether the conviction under Sections 302/149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained. (ii) Whether the conviction of A-5 could stand on the evidence and whether the High Court was justified in reversing his acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, or only of causing grievous hurt, and whether the conviction under Sections 302/149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained.

Analysis: The evidence showed that only A-1 and A-2 caused injuries to the deceased, while A-3, A-4 and A-6 participated in assaults on some of the witnesses. The medical evidence indicated that the fatal result was the cumulative effect of several injuries, none of which was by itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries on the witnesses were mostly simple, and the circumstances did not support an inference that the assembly shared an intention to murder. On the facts, the common object could be inferred only as causing grievous hurt.

Conclusion: The conviction under Sections 302/149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable, and the appellants were liable instead under Section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of A-5 could stand on the evidence and whether the High Court was justified in reversing his acquittal.

Analysis: The material against A-5 was found unreliable, as the claimed role attributed to him was not consistently stated in the first information report or in the statements recorded during investigation. The evidence did not establish his active participation in either the assault on the deceased or the injuries to the witnesses, and the doubt created by the inconsistencies had to go to him.

Conclusion: The reversal of A-5's acquittal was not justified, and he was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part: the convictions for murder were set aside, the matter was restricted to liability for grievous hurt by reason of common object, and A-5 stood acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows participation in a group assault but the fatal injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death and the surrounding circumstances do not establish a shared intention to kill, the common object cannot be extended to murder and liability is confined to the offence supported by the proved object and injuries.

---