Strengthening the Standards for Common Object in Unlawful Assembly: Insights from NARESH @ NEHRU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2023 INSC 889)

Introduction

The case of NARESH @ NEHRU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2023 INSC 889) marks a significant judicial examination of the application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the context of unlawful assembly and the necessity of establishing a common object among its members. This judgment was delivered by Justice Aravind Kumar of the Supreme Court of India on October 9, 2023. The appellants, accused under severe charges including murder under Section 302 IPC, appealed against their convictions upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The key issues in this case revolve around the validity and reliability of eyewitness testimony, the proper interpretation of what constitutes a 'common object' within an unlawful assembly, and the admissibility of confessional statements made under police custody.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the convictions of six accused individuals, particularly focusing on accusers Nos.4, 5, and 6. The core of the prosecution's case was based on the testimony of Mohit @ Kala (PW-9) and the analysis of CCTV footage. The appellants contested the reliability of these evidences, highlighting inconsistencies in witness statements and procedural lapses in evidence handling.

Upon thorough examination, the Supreme Court identified significant gaps in the prosecution's case, including unreliable witness testimony, non-conformity of CCTV evidence with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and inadmissible confessional statements. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of a common object among the accused members of the unlawful assembly, a prerequisite under Section 149 IPC. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions, acquitting the appellants and setting aside the judgments of the lower courts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several pivotal cases that shape the interpretation of evidence and the application of IPC sections:

Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (2012) 8 SCC 21: Established the benchmark for what constitutes a "sterling witness," emphasizing the necessity of consistency and reliability in eyewitness testimonies.
Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and Others (2012) 3 SCC 221: Clarified the interpretation of "common object" in unlawful assemblies, underscoring the importance of members' awareness of the potential commission of offenses.
Lalji vs. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437: Discussed inference drawing from the totality of circumstances to ascertain the common object within an assembly.
Dharam Pal vs. State of U.P. (1975) 2 SCC 596: Highlighted that the common object can be inferred from the nature of the assembly, weapons used, and behavior during the occurrence.
Mehboob Ali & Another vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 14 SCC 640: Addressed the admissibility of confessional statements, stating that confessions made to police are generally inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate.
Indra Dalal vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 31: Reinforced the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the prosecution's reliance on PW-9's testimony and the CCTV footage. It identified that PW-9's statements were riddled with inconsistencies, such as discrepancies in the number of motorcycles involved and the identification of accused individuals. Moreover, the CCTV evidence was deemed unreliable as it did not align with the stringent requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which mandates proper certification of electronic evidence.

The Court emphasized that under Section 149 IPC, establishing a common object is paramount. It must be demonstrated that the accused were aware that committing an offense was likely in furtherance of the assembly's common objective. In this case, the prosecution failed to present concrete evidence that the appellants shared such an object or had the requisite awareness, thereby undermining the foundation for their convictions.

Furthermore, the Court invalidated the confessional statements made by the appellants while in police custody, citing Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. These sections strictly prohibit the use of confessions made to police officers unless recorded before a Magistrate, ensuring that statements are free from coercion and maintain their reliability.

Impact

This judgment sets a critical precedent in the realm of criminal jurisprudence, particularly concerning the enforcement of Section 149 IPC. It reinforces the necessity for the prosecution to establish a clear and unequivocal connection between the accused and the common objective of an unlawful assembly. The emphasis on the quality and consistency of eyewitness testimony serves as a deterrent against wrongful convictions based on unreliable witness accounts.

Additionally, the Court's stringent stance on the admissibility of confessional statements underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the rights of the accused, thereby upholding the principles of a fair trial. Future cases involving unlawful assembly will likely reference this judgment to ensure that convictions are grounded in robust and incontrovertible evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Unlawful Assembly under Section 149 IPC

An unlawful assembly is defined as a group of five or more persons with a common intention to commit a criminal act or to achieve a common unlawful objective. Section 149 IPC holds every member of such an assembly liable for any offense committed in furtherance of the common object, even if they did not personally participate in the act.

2. Common Object

The 'common object' refers to the shared intention among the assembly members to pursue a particular unlawful goal. Establishing a common object requires demonstrating that the members were aware that committing certain offenses was likely necessary to achieve this goal.

3. Sterling Witness

A 'sterling witness' is an individual whose testimony is exceptionally reliable, consistent, and credible. The testimony of a sterling witness can be accepted by the court without requiring additional corroboration.

4. Section 65B of the Evidence Act

This section deals with the admissibility of electronic evidence. For electronic records such as CCTV footage to be admissible in court, they must be accompanied by a Certificate ensuring their authenticity and integrity, following the guidelines stipulated in Section 65B.

Conclusion

The NARESH @ NEHRU v. THE STATE OF HARYANA judgment serves as a pivotal reference in criminal law, particularly in matters concerning unlawful assembly and the requisite proof of a common object. By meticulously scrutinizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the integrity of electronic evidence, the Supreme Court underscored the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions are predicated on robust and indisputable evidence. This case reinforces the principle that mere association within an unlawful assembly does not suffice for culpability; rather, there must be clear evidence of shared intentions and awareness of potential criminal acts. Consequently, this judgment upholds the sanctity of a fair trial and safeguards against miscarriages of justice, setting a high bar for future prosecutions under Section 149 IPC.