Revamping Vicarious Liability and Unlawful Assembly: Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment in KISHORE v. State of Punjab (2024)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's decision in KISHORE v. State of Punjab (2024 INSC 91) marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of criminal liability and the prerequisites of unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case revolves around the convictions of three appellants—Kishore, Bala, and Banaras—for offenses including rioting, wrongful restraint, and culpable homicide, compounded by the application of Section 149 IPC, which imposes vicarious liability on members of an unlawful assembly.

The central issues pertain to the validity of convictions based on allegations of unlawful assembly and the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, especially in the absence of key witness testimonies and proper identification procedures.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court meticulously scrutinized the lower courts' judgments, highlighting significant lapses in evidence and legal principles. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had acquitted two out of five accused but upheld the convictions of Kishore, Bala, and Banaras. The Supreme Court, however, found the convictions untenable due to the absence of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC and the dubious reliability of the eyewitness testimonies.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, acquitting the appellants of all charges and revoking their bail bonds. This judgment underscores the necessity of establishing an unlawful assembly as a precursor to invoking Section 149 IPC and emphasizes the critical evaluation of eyewitness evidence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The prosecution referenced the landmark case Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar (2019) 12 SCC 784, wherein the Supreme Court held the importance of eyewitness reliability in criminal convictions. In KISHORE v. Punjab, this precedent was pivotal in assessing whether the eyewitness testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9 were sufficiently reliable to uphold the convictions without a test identification parade.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on two main pillars:

Unlawful Assembly: Under Section 141 IPC, an unlawful assembly must consist of five or more persons sharing a common object. With two out of five accused acquitted, the collective culpability under Section 149 IPC could not be sustained, as the prerequisite of an unlawful assembly was not met.
Eyewitness Testimony: The Court found the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9 to be unreliable due to the lack of a test identification parade and inconsistencies in their statements. Furthermore, the exclusion of vital witnesses like Lovepreet Kaur, Amritpal Kaur, and Satbir Singh weakened the prosecution's case.

The Court emphasized that while a test identification parade is not mandatory, its absence places a greater onus on the prosecution to ensure the reliability of eyewitness accounts. Given the significant time gap and the failure to adequately cross-examine the witnesses, the Court deemed the evidence insufficient to uphold the convictions.

Impact

This judgment serves as a critical touchstone for future cases involving vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC. It underscores the necessity of establishing an unlawful assembly beyond doubt before holding individual members criminally liable. Additionally, it reinforces the judiciary's stance on the stringent evaluation of eyewitness testimonies, promoting procedural fairness in criminal prosecutions.

Legal practitioners must now ensure that foundational elements like unlawful assembly are incontrovertibly proven and that eyewitness identifications are corroborated through proper procedures to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Vicarious Liability (Section 149 IPC): This legal principle holds all members of an unlawful assembly liable for acts committed by any member, provided these acts are in pursuit of the assembly's common object. The Supreme Court in this case clarified that without establishing the existence of an unlawful assembly, Section 149 cannot be invoked.

Unlawful Assembly (Section 141 IPC): For a group to be deemed an unlawful assembly, it must consist of five or more persons with a common object to commit an offense or wrongful act. The absence of a sufficient number of participants nullifies the basis for collective liability.

Test Identification Parade: A procedure where the accused and other individuals are presented to eyewitnesses to identify the perpetrator. While not mandatory, it enhances the reliability of identification, especially when witnesses do not personally know the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in KISHORE v. State of Punjab is a testament to the judiciary's unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness. By invalidating convictions based on insufficient evidence and the lack of an established unlawful assembly, the Court has reinforced the necessity for stringent adherence to legal protocols in criminal prosecutions.

This decision not only safeguards the rights of the accused against unwarranted convictions but also sets a precedent for ensuring that evidence, particularly eyewitness testimonies, meets the highest standards of reliability and credibility. As such, this judgment will significantly influence future litigation involving vicarious liability and the evaluation of witness evidence under the IPC.