8 October 2025 Legal Updates

S.149 IPC | SUPREME COURT EXPLAINS TESTS TO DETERMINE IF BYSTANDER WAS MEMBER OF UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY WITH COMMON OBJECT

(a) Case Title:

• Zainul v. State of Bihar and Sattar & Ors. v. State of Bihar

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• 7th October, 2025

(d) Bench:

• J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J.

Brief Facts

• On 20th November 1988, a violent incident occurred in Katihar, Bihar involving a land dispute. Two persons (Meghu Mahato and Sarjug Mahato) were killed and five others injured. An FIR was registered naming 72 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, and 342 IPC.
• The prosecution's case was that the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons (guns, pistols, swords, etc.) to prevent the complainant from harvesting paddy from government-allotted settlement land. Out of 72 accused, only 24 were chargesheeted. The Trial Court convicted 21 persons for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court upheld conviction of 12 accused and acquitted 7. Ten convicts appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the appellants could be held guilty under constructive liability for being members of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC ?
• Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given contradictions in witness testimonies?
• Whether the statement of prosecution witness-20 (injured witness) recorded at hospital could be treated as the First Information Report?

Supreme Court's Observations & Ratio Decidendi

1. On Section 149 IPC:

The Court reiterated the essentials of Section 149:

• assembly of 5+ persons; 
• offence committed by any member;
• offence in prosecution of common object OR
• members knew the offence was likely to be committed. The common object must be ascertained from conduct, weapons carried, and circumstances before, during and after the incident.

2. Critical Distinction:

• Mere presence at the scene doesn't make someone a member of unlawful assembly unless they shared the common object. Passive onlookers and curious spectators cannot be convicted under Section 149.

Rule of Prudence

The Court emphasized the "rule of prudence" in cases involving large numbers: When many persons are implicated, courts must carefully scrutinize evidence. Conviction should be sustained only when supported by consistent account of 2-3 reliable witnesses. This mechanical test, though criticized, prevents innocent bystanders from being falsely convicted.

On Evidence Appreciation

• Injured Witness Testimony: While injured witnesses have special credibility (as their injuries prove presence), their testimony must still be reliable and consistent. Unless compelling reasons exist, injured witness statements shouldn't be discarded, but embellishments and contradictions affecting credibility cannot be ignored.
• Medical vs. Ocular Evidence: Ocular evidence has primacy, but when medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of ocular evidence being true, the latter may be disbelieved.

Fatal Flaws Found

• Contradictory Testimonies: Prosecution Witness-20 admitted falling unconscious after assault, yet his FIR named 41 assailants allegedly told to him by other witnesses. PW-3 denied telling PW-20 about 40 accused. Medical evidence contradicted injury descriptions.
• Inconsistent Identification: Different witnesses gave conflicting accounts. Many accused were identified by only one witness without corroboration. Some witnesses couldn't distinguish between assailants and spectators.

Decision

Appeals Allowed. All 10 appellants acquitted. The Court held that accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The oral testimonies neither corroborated each other nor aligned with medical records. Material contradictions went to the root of the matter.

SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE HELMET USE, CURB WRONG-LANE DRIVING & USE OF DAZZLING HEADLIGHTS

(a) Case Title:

• S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• October 7, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a leading orthopaedic surgeon, filed this public interest litigation in 2012 under Article 32 of the Constitution, expressing concern over the alarming rise in road accidents and the casual attitude of authorities despite existing laws and court judgments.

Key Statutory Provisions

• Section 138(1A) allows State Governments to make rules for regulating activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways
• Section 198-A deals with failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance
• Rule 166 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules mandates that design, construction and maintenance of national highways be in accordance with IRC standards

Major Directions Issued

1. On Pedestrian Safety:

• Footpath Audits: Road owning agencies in 50 cities mentioned in the 2023 Report and NHAI must audit existing footpaths, beginning with crowded areas and prioritizing 15-20 spots where pedestrian injuries/deaths occurred in the last 2-3 years, identifying deficiencies and fixing timelines for remedial measures.
• Pedestrian Crossing Audits: Existing pedestrian crossings must be audited for compliance with IRC Guidelines, beginning with crowded intersections, identifying shortcomings and undertaking time-bound remedial measures.
• Encroachment Removal: Authorities must assess footpath encroachments, deploy automated monitoring systems, use physical deterrents like bollards and guardrails, and conduct regular clearance drives with GIS mapping.
• Safety of Subways and FOBs: The audit of pedestrian crossings should focus on traffic calming measures, high-visibility signage, illumination, road dividers to prevent jaywalking, and upgrading subways and foot overbridges with LED lighting, CCTV surveillance, and panic buttons.
• New Pedestrian Crossings: Road owning agencies in 50 cities and NHAI must survey and assess requirements for additional pedestrian crossings, starting with crowded streets and accident-prone areas, targeting at least 20% of roads over one year, with first priority given to Delhi High Court and National Zoological Garden crossing on Mathura Road (to be completed within seven months).
• Grievance Redressal: State Governments/Municipal Authorities/NHAI must create an online grievance redressal mechanism for complaints about footpath encroachments, maintenance issues, and suggestions for pedestrian crossings, with specified response timeframes and a review mechanism.

2. On Helmet Enforcement:

• All State Governments, UTs and NHAI must strictly implement helmet laws for two-wheeler drivers and passengers through e-enforcement mechanisms including cameras, and report the enforcement mechanism, number of persons penalized, amounts recovered, and licenses suspended to the Court.

3. On Lane Discipline:

• State transport departments, traffic police, and urban local bodies shall enforce lane discipline through automated cameras, graduated fines, coloured lane markings, dynamic lighting, rumble strips, and real-time dashboards on lane violations.

4. On Dazzling Lights and Unauthorized Equipment:

• MoRTH, State Transport Departments, and traffic police shall prescribe maximum permissible luminance and beam angles for headlights, enforce compliance through PUC testing, ban unauthorized red-blue strobe lights and illegal hooters through seizure and market crackdowns, and conduct nationwide awareness campaigns.

5. On Rule-Making:

• All States and UTs must formulate and notify Rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the MV Act within six months, if not already framed, for regulating pedestrian activities and establishing design, construction and maintenance standards for roads.

FOR VALID ORAL GIFT (HIBA) UNDER MOHAMMEDAN LAW, PUBLIC POSSESSION MUST BE PROVED; ABSENCE OF MUTATION RAISES DOUBT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• October 7, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Brief Facts

Khadijabee owned agricultural land measuring 24 acres and 28 guntas. The plaintiff (respondent) claimed to be Khadijabee's only daughter and alleged that her mother made an oral gift (Hiba) of 10 acres to her on December 5, 1988, followed by a written Memorandum of Gift on January 5, 1989. After Khadijabee's death in 1990, her husband Abdul Basit got the entire property mutated in his name and later sold it to the defendants through five sale deeds dated February 25, 1995. The plaintiff filed a suit in 2013 seeking declaration of title and cancellation of these sale deeds.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether re-appreciation of evidence is permissible under Article 136
• Whether appellate court can modify decree without cross-appeal
• Whether plaintiff proved her status as Khadijabee's daughter
• Whether oral gift (Hiba) was validly established
• Whether the suit was barred by limitation

Supreme Court's Findings

1. On Appellate Court's Power Without Cross-Appeal:

• The High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's findings on oral gift and enhancing the plaintiff's share without there being an appeal or cross-appeal by the plaintiff. No appeal lies against a mere finding - appeals lie against decrees, not judgments. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the decree in the plaintiff's favor when she had not filed any cross-appeal.

2. On Proof of Relationship (Section 50, Evidence Act):

Section 50 of the Evidence Act requires three essentials for opinion evidence on relationship:

• the court must form opinion on relationship,
• opinion must be expressed through conduct, and
• the person must have special means of knowledge. Conduct is not ultimate proof but an intermediate step - the court must independently weigh such evidence and form its own conclusion.

The Trial Court failed to properly evaluate witnesses' credibility and competence. It accepted testimonies of two interested witnesses (PW2 - cousin, PW3 - brother-in-law) without testing their reliability. The plaintiff withheld crucial documentary evidence like school records, ration card, and birth certificate despite claiming to have studied till 10th standard. The Court improperly compared signatures in disputed documents to establish relationship.

3. On Oral Gift/Hiba under Mohammedan Law:

Three essential conditions for valid Hiba:

• clear manifestation of wish to give by donor,
• (acceptance by donee (implied or explicit), and
• taking of possession by donee (actual or constructive). All three must be fulfilled contemporaneously.

The plaintiff failed to prove delivery of possession - the most critical element. Despite alleged oral gift in 1988, Khadijabee got the entire 24 acres mutated in her own name in 1989. After Khadijabee's death, Abdul Basit mutated the entire property in his name. The plaintiff never got her name mutated as donee, never collected rent, never held title documents, and remained passive for over 23 years. This contradicted the claim of valid Hiba. Courts require contemporaneous and continuous evidence of donee's control over property to establish possession.

4. On Limitation:

• Article 58 of the Limitation Act provides three years for declaratory suits from when the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiff had opportunities to assert her rights in 1989, 1990, 1995, and 2001 but remained silent. The suit filed in 2013 was clearly barred by limitation - being 18 years after the 1995 sale deeds. The Court applied the doctrine of constructive notice, holding that the plaintiff ought to have known about the mutations and sale deeds through reasonable inquiry. Negligence and continued silence for 23 years defeated her claim.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside both the Trial Court and High Court judgments, dismissed the plaintiff's suit entirely, and allowed the defendants' appeal. The plaintiff failed to prove her status as daughter, failed to establish valid oral gift, and her suit was barred by limitation.