Masalti v State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts

On 29 November 1961 a longstanding faction feud in village Bilati Khet, Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh) culminated in an armed mob of about forty persons from Laxmi Prasad's faction attacking the house of the rival Gayadin faction. Five persons — Gayadin, Brindaban, Radha Saran, Dayaram and Shiroman Singh — were killed, and their bodies dragged to a field and burnt with kerosene. The Sessions Court convicted thirty-five accused (ten sentenced to death); the High Court acquitted seven and confirmed the convictions and death sentences of ten. Sixteen convicted persons, including Masalti, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• What test should a court apply when assessing eye-witness evidence in a case involving a large number of accused arising out of a single incident?
• Whether the testimony of partisan or interested witnesses belonging to the rival faction can be rejected merely because it is partisan.
• Whether a member of an unlawful assembly can be convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to death without proof that he personally committed the killing.

Arguments

The appellants contended that the High Court failed to properly discharge its duty in confirming the death sentences, that material witnesses were suppressed, and that the evidence of partisan witnesses followed a uniform pattern without assigning specific overt acts, so the "four-witness" test the High Court used was mechanical and unsafe; they also argued no death sentence could be imposed without proof of personal participation in the murder. The State argued the evidence of the credible eye-witnesses established the common object of the unlawful assembly, that partisan evidence is not automatically excluded if otherwise reliable, and that liability under Section 149 is vicarious so no individual overt act need be shown.

Held

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the convictions, holding that where an offence involves a large number of offenders it is reasonable and prudent for a court to require that the case against each accused be supported by two, three or more witnesses giving a consistent account of the incident. Although such a test is in a sense mechanical, it is not irrational in cases of large-scale faction violence and serves to guard against false implication. The Court held that the mechanical rejection of evidence merely because the witnesses are partisan would itself lead to failure of justice; such evidence must be carefully scrutinised but cannot be discarded solely on the ground of partisanship. It affirmed that liability under Section 149 is vicarious and does not require proof that every member personally committed the offence, so a member of the unlawful assembly may be convicted and even sentenced to death. While confirming the death sentences of the principal accused, it reduced the sentences of three young accused (Ram Saran, Asha Ram and Deo Prasad) from death to imprisonment for life.

Ratio decidendi

In a case involving a large number of accused arising out of one incident, a conviction may safely be sustained only where the case against each accused is supported by two or more witnesses giving a consistent account; partisan or interested evidence is not to be rejected mechanically but must be carefully appreciated, and liability under Section 149 IPC is vicarious, requiring no proof of an individual overt act by each member.

Significance

A landmark on the appreciation of eye-witness evidence in mass faction-violence trials, establishing the "two-or-more consistent witnesses" guideline for convicting members of a large unlawful assembly and rejecting blanket exclusion of partisan testimony. It has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court in multiple-accused riot and faction cases. The principles of unlawful assembly and common object now sit under Section 189 BNS, 2023 (unlawful assembly), Section 190 BNS (every member liable for offences committed in prosecution of the common object, corresponding to the old Section 149 IPC) and Section 103 BNS (murder), while the evidentiary guidance applies equally under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Related