Suresh Dattu Bhojane vs. State of Maharashtra [July 08, 2024]
Citation: 2024 INSC 468; Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2012
Background and Facts
This case arose from a group assault in Maharashtra that resulted in the death of Mohan Mungase and injuries to two others. The incident occurred at the house of Mama Bhojane, following disputes over the management of a country liquor shop. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including Suresh Dattu Bhojane (A-5), Anna @ Anil Maruti Bhojane (A-6), and Satish Rama Bhojane (A-3), formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with the common object of committing murder and causing injury.
The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1-6 under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 302 read with 149 (murder by unlawful assembly), and 307 read with 149 (attempt to murder) of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Accused Nos. 7 and 8 were acquitted. The High Court upheld these convictions. The present appeals before the Supreme Court were filed by A-3, A-5, and A-6.
Key Issues
Whether the conviction of A-5 and A-6 was justified solely based on their presence as part of the unlawful assembly, even though they were not assigned specific roles or armed with weapons.
Whether the evidence established the common object of the assembly and the participation of the appellants.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 149 IPC, the presence of an accused as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object is sufficient for conviction, even if the accused did not actively participate or were not armed.
The Court relied on the consistent and credible testimony of eyewitnesses, particularly Savita (PW-4) and Nandkumar Mungase (PW-5), who confirmed the presence of A-5 and A-6 at the scene and their association with the group that committed the murder.
The evidence showed that the assembly was formed to "teach a lesson" to the deceased and his brother due to a dispute over the liquor shop’s management. Both A-5 and A-6 were present during the threats and the fatal assault, establishing their participation in the unlawful assembly with the requisite common object.
For A-3, the Court found direct evidence of active participation, as he was armed with a sword and inflicted blows on the deceased and injured persons. The Court saw no error in his conviction.
The Court emphasized that the minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment and cannot be reduced. However, it noted that if the appellants have served a substantial part of their sentence, they may seek remission as per state policy.
Conclusion and Significance
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences of A-3, A-5, and A-6 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 307/149 IPC.
The judgment clarifies that mere presence as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit a crime is sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC, even absent direct participation or possession of weapons.
The decision reinforces the principles of collective liability and the importance of credible eyewitness testimony in group crime cases.
This ruling affirms the strict application of Section 149 IPC and the collective responsibility of all members of an unlawful assembly in serious offences like murder.
RELATED Blog
0 comments