Injured-witness evidence and common-object liability under Section 149: convictions upheld for most appellants, but one acquitted for lack of proof.

Credible injured-witness and eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the absence of independent witnesses was not treated as fatal on the facts. However, liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could not be imposed merely from presence at the scene; there had to be material showing sharing of the common object. On that basis, the convictions of the remaining appellants were affirmed, while the appellant against whom no overt act was alleged was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the convictions recorded on the basis of the testimony of injured and other eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence, required interference. (ii) Whether the appellant against whom no overt act was alleged could be convicted with the aid of common object under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): The prosecution examined seven eyewitnesses, including four injured witnesses, and their evidence was found trustworthy by the courts below. The medical evidence corroborated the occurrence. The defence version of a counter case, unexplained injuries, and shifting of the place of occurrence was not accepted, and the lack of independent witnesses was not treated as fatal in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The convictions of the appellants, other than the appellant entitled to benefit of doubt, were upheld.

Issue (ii): The appellant Nagarjit Ahir was not attributed any overt act. In a crowded public place, mere presence was held insufficient to fasten liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 without material showing sharing of the common object. Applying the rule of caution, the Court found it unsafe to sustain his conviction.

Conclusion: The appellant Nagarjit Ahir was entitled to benefit of doubt and was acquitted.

Final Conclusion: The batch of appeals resulted in affirmation of the convictions of the remaining appellants, while Nagarjit Ahir was acquitted for want of proof of participation in the common object.

Ratio Decidendi: Credible injured-witness testimony, when corroborated by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction, but liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be imposed merely on presence at the scene unless sharing of the unlawful assembly's common object is shown.

---