INTRODUCTION
In Dablu & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 224, decided on 11 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on several accused for the murder of one Balkishan.
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for the acts committed in furtherance of the common object of that assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
BRIEF FACTS
The case concerned the murder of Balkishan, who was the Chairman of a Watershed Committee. On 3 June 2000, Balkishan was waiting at the Tihuli bus stand to attend a committee meeting when several accused persons arrived at the spot in a bus, armed with firearms.
The Prosecution alleged that the main Accused Vikram fired the first shot at the deceased from behind a tractor trolley, injuring him. The deceased attempted to flee toward the village but was chased by the accused persons. He eventually entered the house of one Rattan Lal, where the Accused dragged him into the courtyard and shot him at close range, resulting in his immediate death.
An FIR was promptly lodged by the deceased’s brother. After investigation, charge sheets were filed and the Accused were tried. The Trial Court convicted them under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The conviction was subsequently affirmed by the High Court, leading the Accused to approach the Supreme Court in appeal.
ISSUES OF LAW
The principal issues before the Supreme Court were:
1) Whether the prosecution had established the participation of the appellants in the murder of the deceased.
2) Whether the ingredients necessary for invoking Section 149 IPC, namely the existence of an unlawful assembly and a common object, were satisfied.
3) Whether alleged inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses and procedural lapses in investigation undermined the prosecution case.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence placed on record. The Court noted that several eyewitnesses consistently testified that all the accused persons had arrived together at the bus stand armed with firearms and that after the first shot was fired, they collectively chased the deceased.
The Court observed that the fact that the Accused had arrived together armed with weapons was a strong indication that they were part of an unlawful assembly with a shared common object. Even though the main Accused Vikram was alleged to have fired the initial shot, the participation of the other accused in chasing the deceased and being present at the scene demonstrated their active involvement in the crime.
The Court reiterated that under Section 149 IPC, the presence of a person in an unlawful assembly with a common object is sufficient to attract criminal liability even if no specific overt act is attributed to each individual member.
The defence argued that there was no reliable independent eyewitness to the second stage of the incident, when the deceased was shot inside the house of Rattan Lal. However, the Court held that this argument was insufficient to discredit the Prosecution case. Although the independent witness did not see the actual shooting, he confirmed hearing gunshots and the presence of the accused persons.
Further, medical evidence supported the prosecution’s version. The post-mortem examination revealed multiple firearm injuries and the recovery of several pellets from the body of the deceased. This evidence corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
The Court also rejected the argument that the witnesses were unreliable merely because they were related to the deceased. It reiterated that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on that ground if it is otherwise credible and consistent.
Finally, the Court observed that minor procedural lapses in investigation, including alleged non-compliance with certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not materially affect the Prosecution case.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence on record clearly established that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and had acted with the common object of killing the deceased. Accordingly, the Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the High Court.
The Appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were confirmed. The Appellants, who were on bail during the pendency of the Appeal, were directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining part of their sentence.
The Judgment reinforces the legal principle that membership of an unlawful assembly with a common object can itself attract criminal liability for acts committed in furtherance of that object, even in the absence of specific overt acts attributed to each accused.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “DO HUSBANDS HAVE A RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE UNDER INDIAN LAW?” can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAodOc4AfTk