LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rishiraj @ Tutul Mukharjee & Anr. vs The State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 609Decided 20 May 2022
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1302 and 1303 of 2019
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

In June 2010, a late-night altercation broke out in a hotel parking lot in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, between a group of accused persons and two men, Gudda Sonkar and Nanka Ghore. During the scuffle, one accused pulled out a pistol which was snatched by another, who shot Gudda Sonkar in the face; the weapon was then taken back and used to shoot Nanka Ghore, who had intervened. As Gudda Sonkar lay wounded but alive, other members of the group shouted that he should be finished off, and he was shot again and killed. Multiple eyewitnesses saw the incident, and the trial court convicted the principal shooters of murder and convicted the other group members (including the present appellants) of murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC (member of an unlawful assembly sharing the common object). The High Court upheld all convictions; the two principal shooters' further appeals to the Supreme Court were rejected at admission, leaving the remaining accused to press these appeals.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that presence and participation in the initial scuffle (which included pushing the victims) combined with the appellants' exhortation urging the shooters to kill Gudda Sonkar while he lay wounded was sufficient to establish they shared the common object of the unlawful assembly to commit murder, even though they did not personally fire any shots. The Court found no evidence that any appellant tried to withdraw or dissociate from the group once the shooting started, and their conduct was consistent and unshaken in cross-examination. Rejecting the argument that they were merely bystanders in an oral altercation, the Court affirmed that their active role in the scuffle and the exhortation to kill made them vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and dismissed all three connected appeals.

Lesson Learnt

Under Section 149 IPC, a person need not personally strike the fatal blow to be convicted of murder as part of an unlawful assembly: actively participating in the confrontation and urging or encouraging the fatal act (such as shouting to "finish him off") is enough to establish shared common object and equal criminal liability.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case