Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 149, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 190 Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly is alleged in a criminal trial resulting in death or injury to multiple persons: (1) Charges must be framed distinctly and specifically for each victim and for each accused, particularly distinguishing which accused is alleged to have caused death of which victim and on what basis (direct liability or vicarious liability under Section 149); (2) The existence of an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC (assembly of 5+ persons with common object to commit offence) must be established as foundational to any conviction under Sections 143, 146, 148, or 149; (3) The common object of the assembly must be inferred from the circumstances of gathering, time, place, and conduct as a group - not from individual overt acts alone; (4) The mere presence of an accused in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for vicarious liability under Section 149 for offences committed by other members if he had knowledge that such offence was likely to be committed; (5) Defective charge framing that fails to communicate to the accused with precision the nature of their alleged liability violates Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes failure of justice warranting appellate intervention; (6) When, after substantial passage of time (such as 26 years), procedural defects and evidentiary degradation make fresh trial impracticable, public law damages awarded to victims by the State may be an appropriate remedy for state's failure in maintaining law and order.
On this section: Declares vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly for offences committed by other members in prosecution of common object or known to be likely to be committed
-
Parshuram vs State Of M.P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death. If the evidence does not clearly establish this common object, and if the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons (which creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version), the conviction should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such circumstances.
On this section: Act of member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object - Vicarious liability principle; not necessary that every member commits the actual offence
-
Vidhya Rattan vs The State of Haryana Home Department Chief Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the application of Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to explicitly invoke Section 141 IPC in the charge sheet. What is essential is that the ingredients of unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 IPC must be proven. An unlawful assembly requires: (i) an assembly of at least five persons, and (ii) a common object to commit an offence or achieve any of the objects enumerated in Section 141. The common object is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case such as time, place, and conduct of the gathering. Once the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object is proven, all members of that assembly are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences committed in prosecution of that common object, regardless of whether each member inflicted a specific injury or even any injury at all. Mere presence in the unlawful assembly with knowledge of the common object is sufficient for vicarious liability.
On this section: Provides vicarious liability for all members of unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of common object. This is the key section applied in this case. The Court clarified that this section propounds vicarious liability in two contingencies: (i) if a member commits an offence in prosecution of common object, all members are guilty, and (ii) even if members do not share the same common object, if they knew that others are likely to commit the offence, they are liable.
-
Krishna @ Bala Krishnan vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where eyewitness evidence establishes that members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons came together with the common object of committing murder, attacked family members with deadly weapons and with common intent as evidenced by slogans and coordinated attack in quick succession, all members of such unlawful assembly are vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for all murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even if not all members physically perpetrated each murder. The High Court's modification of conviction from Section 34 to Section 149 is justified where the facts establish common object rather than merely common intention. While multiple life sentences can be awarded for multiple murders, they cannot be directed to run consecutively, but term sentences may precede and commence before life sentences in accordance with Section 31 CrPC.
On this section: Vicarious criminal liability for members of unlawful assembly. Applied to hold all members of unlawful assembly vicariously liable for eight murders committed by specific members in prosecution of common object. Court upheld substitution of Section 149 for Section 34 based on eyewitness evidence establishing common object.
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and mass murder, where eyewitnesses testify to the presence of multiple armed persons acting in concert with a common object to commit murder, and where the accused are heard shouting slogans indicating intent to kill, the conviction can be upheld under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC even if the charge was originally framed under Section 34 IPC, provided the evidence establishes the common object of the assembly and the participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The vicarious liability of all members of the unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of the common object is established when eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated by other evidence such as recovered weapons and the nature of the attack.
On this section: Vicarious criminal liability for acts done in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly; applied to hold all members of unlawful assembly liable for murders committed by any member
-
Muthuramalingam vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly of five or more armed persons with a common object attacks and kills multiple persons in a coordinated manner demonstrating shared purpose through actions like shouting incitements to kill, the members of such assembly are all vicariously liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murders committed in prosecution of the common object, even without proof of a pre-arranged plan required for Section 34. The conviction does not become fatal merely because originally charged under Section 34 if the evidence establishes the elements of Section 149 and no prejudice is shown.
On this section: Vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly for act committed in prosecution of common object; High Court modified conviction under this section instead of Section 34
-
Ram Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving unlawful assembly and large number of accused charged with joint offences causing multiple deaths and injuries, particularly where accused are co-villagers of witnesses: (1) Identification of accused can be established through naming in FIR, consistent testimony throughout trial, and absence of any challenge to identification at any stage, without requiring explicit identification claim in examination-in-chief; (2) Application of Section 149 IPC does not require separate role analysis for each member if it is shown that common object of unlawful assembly existed and the offence was committed in prosecution of that common object, with members aware of likelihood of such offence; (3) In such cases, the Masalti test requiring corroboration by minimum of two or three witnesses should be applied for sustaining conviction of individual accused to prevent wrongful inclusion of innocent bystanders; (4) Eyewitness testimony from interested/related witnesses can be credible if consistent with earliest version in FIR and supported by medical evidence, and absence of independent witnesses can be explained by fear in large-scale violence; (5) Absence of forensic evidence (pellet recovery, ballistic report) does not vitiate conviction when supported by cogent eyewitness testimony consistent with medical evidence of injuries; (6) Injuries on accused persons do not require prosecution explanation absent counter-version, self-defense plea, or proof that injuries occurred in same occurrence at same place.
On this section: Liability of every member of unlawful assembly for offence committed by any one member in prosecution of common object; requires nexus between incriminating act and common object of assembly, and knowledge of likelihood by other members
-
State of Rajasthan vs Shvi Charan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For conviction under Section 149 IPC (Constructive Liability), the prosecution must establish: (I) An assembly of five or more persons; (II) The assembly was unlawful with a common object; and (III) The common object consisted of one or more of the illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC. Common object need not be formed prior to the incident but can be formed on the spur of the moment. Once such unlawful assembly with common object is proven, all members can be held vicariously liable for any offence committed by any member in prosecution of such common object, without requiring each member to commit an overt act. However, mere presence or association is insufficient; there must be evidence that each member intended to or knew of the likelihood of commission of the offence. Additionally, where injuries sustained by the accused are minor in nature, non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis to reject clear, cogent and creditworthy prosecution evidence.
On this section: Constructive liability for act of any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object or known to be likely committed; central provision for holding all respondents liable for death caused by unlawful assembly
-
Haradhan Das vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When five or more accused are charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the Court finds that the identification, role, and object in participation against some of those accused is not proved, still other persons forming the unlawful assembly against whom the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt can be punished for an offence under Sections 302/149 IPC. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court cannot be vitiated merely because other co-accused are acquitted, provided the eyewitness evidence clearly establishes the specific role and identification of the convicted accused. Additionally, eyewitness testimony from injured witnesses and family members who were present at the scene remains credible and admissible even if minor discrepancies exist, if the core facts regarding time, place, manner of occurrence, and identification are consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
On this section: Constructive liability of members of unlawful assembly - used to hold all members jointly liable for an offence committed by any one member if done in pursuance of common intention or common object. Applied to find Haradhan Das liable for the murder committed during the dacoity.
-
Bharat Soni Etc vs State of Chhatisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly cannot be held liable for a substantive offence (such as murder) committed by another member under Section 149 IPC unless there is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence establishing either: (a) that the accused shared the common object to commit that specific substantive offence, or (b) that the accused knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The mere fact of presence at the scene, participation in general violence, or use of force to accomplish a lesser common object (such as teaching someone a lesson) is insufficient to establish constructive liability for a substantive offence like murder. Eyewitness testimony must be consistent between the FIR and court deposition, and the evidence must clearly establish the nexus between each accused's actions and the fatal injury, or must establish knowledge that murder specifically was likely.
On this section: Constructive liability of members of unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of common object; the core provision discussed extensively and applied to determine whether the appellants are liable for the substantive offence of murder committed by other members
-
Atmaram vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where multiple bodily injuries are intentionally caused by different members of an unlawful assembly acting with common intention and common knowledge that the cumulative effect of such injuries is likely to, and will, cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the offence constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, even if no individual injury is independently sufficient to cause death. The fact that injuries are inflicted on non-vital as well as vital parts of the body by different weapons does not negate the culpability but rather demonstrates the coordinated and brutal nature of the attack indicative of intent to kill. Minor variations in eyewitness statements regarding specific details of attribution of injuries are inconsequential when the core facts of incident, presence of witnesses, involvement of accused, and causation of death are substantially corroborated by medical evidence and dying declaration.
On this section: Applied to establish vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for the collective act of murder despite individual specific attribution of injuries being difficult
-
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants have been expressly charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and acquitted thereof by both the trial court and the appellate court, they cannot be legally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which creates constructive liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object. The common substratum necessary for both Sections 148 and 149 (i.e., the unlawful assembly with common object) must exist for Section 149 constructive liability to apply. Further, a High Court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal by using case diary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify witness credibility or overcome contradictions without following the mandatory procedure under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Constructive liability of unlawful assembly members - applied by High Court for conviction but held impermissible when Section 148 acquitted
-
Mohammad Shakir vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under Section 149 IPC for constructive liability arising from membership in unlawful assembly, proof of overt act by each individual member is not necessary. Mere presence of the accused in an assembly of five or more persons with knowledge of the common unlawful object, and behavior consistent with furtherance of that object (such as surrounding the victim, preventing rescue, possessing weapons, and coordinated departure), is sufficient to establish liability under Section 149 IPC. Further, procedural delays in forwarding FIR to Magistrate do not vitiate the prosecution if the FIR was registered promptly and investigation commenced immediately, and do not affect the credibility of eyewitness testimony or chain of evidence. Additionally, in cases of multiple deaths, the award of death sentence is discretionary and not mandatory; courts may impose life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the case, and mere plurality of victims is not the determinative factor for death sentence.
On this section: Constructive liability for act of one member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object; core legal issue discussed extensively in judgment regarding applicability and scope
-
State of Karnataka vs Hanamantappa Shivappa Havanur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the main prosecution witnesses, particularly the alleged victims of the crime, turn hostile and depose that no incident took place, and their testimony contradicts the statements given to police, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons, and they must be acquitted. The credibility and reliability of witness testimony is paramount in criminal prosecutions, and the court cannot convict based on documents or circumstantial evidence alone when the direct witnesses deny the allegations.
On this section: Common object doctrine - Court applied this section in conjunction with other sections but found that common object could not be established due to lack of credible witness testimony
-
Karam Singh vs State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), while the conviction cannot be set aside merely on the basis of compromise between parties, the compromise is a relevant and significant circumstance that the court must consider when determining the quantum of sentence. When parties who are residents of the same village and apparently related have settled their disputes amicably after a prolonged period, the court should take a lenient view on sentencing to enable the parties to live cordially together, provided the conviction is maintained to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, acquittals recorded by the trial court should not be reversed on appeal at a belated stage when the evidence was insufficient at trial and the parties have subsequently reconciled.
On this section: Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offence Committed in Prosecution of Common Object - Cited in FIR
-
Gangadhar Lingu Bhuyare vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence in the form of witness statements exists indicating the applicants' involvement in an assault that resulted in death, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, notwithstanding the applicants' denials or allegations of witness intimidation, as the court must consider the totality of evidence collected during investigation.
On this section: Act of one member in prosecution of common object - Applied to establish collective liability
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Respondents J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The Trial Court held the respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the offences punishable under Section 302 …
-
… There were a total of 9 accused. The trial court acquitted the accused no. 4. The rest of them were convicted. The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). The appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction vide judgment dated 24th September 2010. 3. As far as accused no.9 is concerned, this Court ordered him to be released on bail by order dated 10th May 2011. …
-
… There were a total of 9 accused. The trial court acquitted the accused no. 4. The rest of them were convicted. The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). The appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction vide judgment dated 24th September 2010. 3. As far as accused no.9 is concerned, this Court ordered him to be released on bail by order dated 10th May 2011. …
Questions about Section 149
What have the courts held on Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (16 May 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Declares vicarious liability of members of unlawful assembly for offences committed by other members in prosecution of common object or known to be likely to be committed. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 149, section 149 IPC, section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (16 May 2018).
What should I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 190 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 149, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.