Individual liability in group assault Paras 5.2.1, 5.3 In cases of free fight, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of the individual role played by each accused, and not on the basis of collective attribution of acts.

advocatemmmohan

Headnote 1 — Free fight and absence of common object

Paras 5.2, 5.2.1

Where the incident arises out of a sudden quarrel leading to a free fight between two rival groups and injuries are sustained by both sides, formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder cannot be inferred merely from participation in the fight; consequently, conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC is unsustainable.

---

Headnote 2 — Individual liability in group assault

Paras 5.2.1, 5.3

In cases of free fight, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of the individual role played by each accused, and not on the basis of collective attribution of acts.

---

Headnote 3 — Single blow with blunt weapon on head

Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.5

Where the accused inflicts a single blow with a blunt object on the head of the deceased during a sudden fight without premeditation, and medical evidence establishes that death resulted from such injury, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC if intention to cause death is not proved but knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death can be inferred.

---

Headnote 4 — Distinction between murder and culpable homicide

Paras 5.1.3–5.1.5, 5.4

The distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC depends upon the degree of intention and knowledge; absence of intention to cause death, coupled with knowledge of likelihood of death, attracts Section 304 Part II IPC.

---

Headnote 5 — Sentence reduction on account of age and incarceration

Paras 6, 6.1

While sustaining conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone having regard to advanced age of the accused and substantial period of incarceration already suffered.

---

ANALYSIS (Court’s Reasoning)

1. Nature of the incident

   • The occurrence stemmed from a sudden quarrel involving family members.

   • Both sides sustained injuries.

   • Cross-FIRs were lodged, indicating a mutual and spontaneous clash.

2. Failure to establish unlawful assembly / common object

   • Evidence did not disclose prior meeting of minds.

   • Participation in a group fight, by itself, was held insufficient to invoke Sections 147, 148 or 149 IPC.

3. Assessment of individual act

   • The appellant inflicted one lathi blow on the head of the deceased.

   • Medical evidence conclusively linked that injury to the cause of death.

   • The appellant himself suffered head injuries, reinforcing the inference of a free fight.

4. Mental element (mens rea)

   • No premeditation or intention to kill was established.

   • However, given the nature of injury and the body part targeted, knowledge that death was likely could be imputed.

5. Correctness of conviction under Section 304 Part II

   • The High Court rightly altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.

   • Supreme Court affirmed this finding as legally sound.

6. Sentencing discretion

   • Considering:

     • appellant’s age (over 80 years),

     • total incarceration of over six years,

   • the sentence was reduced to period already undergone, while conviction was maintained.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In a case arising out of a sudden free fight where both sides sustain injuries, absence of common object excludes application of Section 149 IPC; where the accused inflicts a single blow with a blunt weapon on the head without premeditation, causing death, and intention to kill is not proved though knowledge of likelihood of death can be inferred, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.