Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object

Now in the BNS

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (1962)Where the charge and evidence named only five members of an unlawful assembly and two were acquitted, Section 149 IPC could not apply to the rest, but the appellants' murder conviction was altered to Section 302 read with Section 34.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)Explaining how the Bachan Singh 'rarest of rare cases' rule is to be applied, the Court set out categories of murder that may call for death and confirmed three death sentences for a series of killings.
• Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1954)Holding that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, the Court reduced Pandurang's murder conviction to one under Section 326 IPC and commuted the death sentences of Tukia and Bhilia.

Questions on this section

5 questions in 17 of our papers cite Section 149. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Masalti v. State of U.P. (1964), dealing with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC (now Section 190 BNS), the Supreme Court held that

   A.liability under the provision arises only where the common object was agreed upon at a prior meeting of all the membersB.a member of an unlawful assembly is liable only for the offence which he personally commits in prosecution of the common objectC.the provision applies only where the unlawful assembly consists of more than ten persons present at the spotD.it is not necessary to prove that each member of the unlawful assembly committed some illegal overt act, since liability under the provision is in a sense vicarious
   Show answer

2. 2. In Lalji v. State of U.P. (1989), dealing with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court held that the common object of an unlawful assembly:

   A.is to be inferred from the nature of the assembly, the arms used and its conduct at or before the occurrenceB.must be proved by direct evidence of a meeting of all the members held well before the occurrence took placeC.means the same thing as the common intention of the members under Section 34D.can be inferred only from a separate overt act proved against each member of the assembly individually
   Show answer

3. 3. Match List I (provisions of the BNS) with List II (corresponding provisions of the IPC): List I A. Section 103 BNS B. Section 106(1) BNS C. Section 190 BNS D. Section 196 BNS List II 1. Section 304A IPC 2. Section 302 IPC 3. Section 153A IPC 4. Section 149 IPC

   A.A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3B.A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3C.A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3D.A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4
   Show answer