SC Upholds Life Imprisonment for Pune Wedding Murder; Common Object Under Section 149 IPC Fully Proven

This case arose from a brutal attack on 27 April 1999 in Pune District, following a dispute during family wedding festivities. During a return journey from Bhor, the accused, members of the Gholap family, and their associates ambushed a jeep carrying Ankush Gholap and others. The assailants arrived on two motorcycles armed with knives and a sattur, forcibly dragged the victims from the vehicle, and assaulted them. Ankush was fatally stabbed, while two others, PW-7 and PW-9, sustained grievous injuries. The trial court convicted accused nos. 1, 2, and 6 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC but acquitted accused nos. 3, 4, and 5 for lack of sufficient evidence.

HC’s Decision: The Bombay High Court, upon appeal, reversed the acquittal of accused nos. 3 and 4 and held that accused no. 6 was also guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The court found that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder. The High Court’s findings were challenged before the Supreme Court by Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse (A3), Raju @ Rajendra Bhiwrao Shirwale (A4), and Subhash Raghunath Pawar (A6).

Issue to be Decided: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC based on common object and vicarious liability.

SC’s Decision: The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court noted that the ocular testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-7, and PW-9) were natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The appellants were proven to have actively facilitated and participated in the coordinated attack; accused nos. 3 and 4 transported armed assailants to the crime scene and restrained the victims, while accused no. 6 inflicted serious injuries. The medical evidence confirmed multiple fatal injuries consistent with sharp weapons.

The Court held that the coordinated and armed assault clearly demonstrated a shared intent to kill, discarding the defense’s argument. Relying on Masalti v. State of U.P. and Lalji v. State of U.P. (1989), the Bench reiterated that every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for acts committed in furtherance of the common object. The Supreme Court found no perversity in the High Court’s reasoning and affirmed the life imprisonment and other sentences imposed.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below