Legal Review and Analysis of Zainul & Ors vs State of Bihar 2025 INSC 1192

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Zainul & Ors. vs. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 INSC 1192
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

This judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Constructive liability of members of an unlawful assembly.

• Section 141 of the IPC: Definition of an unlawful assembly.

• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Relating to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

• Section 161 of the CrPC: Relating to the recording of statements by the police during investigation.

• Sections 302 (Murder) and 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the IPC: Read with Section 149.

3. Basic Details of the Case

• Origin: The appeals arose from a common judgment of the Patna High Court which had upheld the convictions and life sentences of the appellants.

• Background of the Case: The case originated from a violent incident on November 20, 1988, in Katihar, Bihar, over a dispute concerning the possession of agricultural land (referred to as 'settlement land' or 'parcha land'). The prosecution alleged that a mob of 400-500 people from village Mahila attacked the complainant party from village Baharkhal, resulting in the deaths of two individuals (Meghu Mahto and Sarjug Mahto) and injuries to five others.

• FIR: The FIR was registered based on the statement of an injured eyewitness, Jagdish Mahto (PW-20), initially naming 72 accused.

• Trial Court: The Trial Court convicted 21 out of 24 accused persons.

• High Court: The High Court, in appeal, acquitted 7 convicts, thereby upholding the conviction of 11 accused.

• Supreme Court: The present appeals were filed by 10 convicted individuals (after two appeals abated due to the death of the appellants) challenging the High Court's judgment.

4. Core Principles and Issues Addressed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's judgment revolves around a meticulous re-appreciation of evidence and the correct application of legal principles, particularly concerning constructive liability. The core issues are addressed under the following heads.

A. The Interpretation and Application of Section 149 IPC

This was the central legal issue in the case. The Court provided an in-depth analysis of the doctrine of constructive liability.

• Essentials of Section 149 IPC: The Court reiterated that for convicting a person under Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove:
  There was an assembly of five or more persons.
  The assembly was "unlawful" as defined under Section 141 IPC.
  An offence was committed by a member of that unlawful assembly.
  The offence was committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or the members of the assembly knew that such an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object.

• Distinction Between "Common Object" and "Common Intention": The Court emphasized that "common object" under Section 149 is different from "common intention" under Section 34 IPC. Common object does not require a prior concert or meeting of minds. It can be formed on the spur of the moment and is to be inferred from the acts, language, weapons carried, and conduct of the members.

• Innocent Bystander vs. Member of an Unlawful Assembly: The Court drew a critical distinction. Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly. A person who is a mere passive onlooker, a curious spectator, or an innocent bystander cannot be held vicariously liable. The prosecution must prove through direct or indirect circumstances that the accused shared the common object of the assembly.

B. The Rule of Prudence in Cases Involving a Large Number of Accused

The Supreme Court laid significant emphasis on a rule of caution, especially in cases where a large number of persons are implicated.

• Caution Against False Implication: The Court cited landmark cases like Masatti v. State of U.P. and Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal, warning that in faction-ridden rural settings, there is a natural tendency to implicate as many people from the rival faction as possible, including innocent bystanders.

• Test of Consistent and Reliable Evidence: The Court endorsed the principle that when a large number of accused are involved, the presence and participation of an accused should be satisfactorily proved by the consistent account of at least two or three reliable witnesses. Vague, omnibus, or general allegations are not sufficient to fasten constructive liability.

• Need for Cogent Evidence: The Court held that something more than merely being named in the witness box is necessary. There must be cogent and credible material to show that the accused shared the common object at all crucial stages of the incident.

C. Appreciation of Evidence and Its Infirmities

The Supreme Court found fatal flaws in the prosecution's evidence, which formed the basis for acquittal.

• Unreliable Ocular Testimony: The Court found the testimonies of the key injured eyewitnesses (PWs 3, 5, 6, 10, and 20) to be marred by material inconsistencies, contradictions, and embellishments.
  Contradictions in PW-20's Testimony: PW-20, the first informant, stated in court that he fell unconscious and could not name the assailants of other victims, which directly contradicted his FIR where he named 41 assailants based on information from other injured witnesses.
  Lack of Corroboration: For several appellants, the accusations were based on the testimony of a single witness, with no corroboration from others. For example, accused Nos. 7, 13, and 14 were implicated only by PW-6.
  Variance with Medical Evidence: In some instances, the oral testimony of witnesses regarding the weapons used (e.g., a gandasa or lathi) did not align with the nature of injuries (incised wounds) described in the medical evidence.

• Credibility of Injured Witnesses: While acknowledging that the testimony of an injured witness is generally accorded high credibility, the Court clarified that this is not an absolute rule. The evidence must still be trustworthy and free from major contradictions that strike at the root of the case. The injuries only ensure their presence, not the veracity of their entire account.

D. The Validity of the First Information Report (FIR)

The Court raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the FIR.

• Ante-timed and Afterthought: Evidence from various witnesses (PWs 3, 4, 5, and 8) indicated that the police had arrived at the scene and recorded statements much earlier (around 9-11 AM). However, the formal FIR was registered only at 2:35 PM based on PW-20's statement recorded in the hospital at 1:30 PM.

• Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the first information about the crime had already reached the police before PW-20's statement was recorded. Consequently, his statement should be treated as one under Section 161 CrPC (investigation stage) and not as an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. The FIR, therefore, appeared to be a product of deliberation and consultation, making the entire investigation tainted and unreliable.

5. Analysis and Final Outcome

Analysis: The Supreme Court's judgment is a classic example of appellate courts exercising their power to re-appreciate evidence when the lower courts have committed a manifest error. The Court found that both the Trial Court and the High Court had failed to apply the stringent rule of prudence required in cases with a large number of accused. They had erroneously convicted individuals based on vague, inconsistent, and uncorroborated testimony, stretching the principle of constructive liability beyond its legal limits to rope in passive onlookers. The Court meticulously sifted through the evidence and found the prosecution's story to be unworthy of credit.

Final Outcome:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. All 10 appellants were acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds were discharged.

MCQs Based on the Judgment

1. In the case of Zainul vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants primarily based on which of the following reasons?
a) The appellants had proven their right to private defence.
b) The incident occurred over 30 years ago, and the evidence was stale.
c) The prosecution failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies.
d) The investigating officer was found to be related to one of the victims.

c) The prosecution failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies.

2. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 149 IPC in this judgment, which of the following is a correct statement?
a) Mere presence at the scene of a crime is sufficient to convict a person as a member of an unlawful assembly.
b) Constructive liability under Section 149 can be applied to innocent bystanders and passive onlookers.
c) For a conviction under Section 149, it is imperative to prove that every member of the assembly committed an overt act.
d) The prosecution must prove that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly, and mere presence without this is not enough.

d) The prosecution must prove that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly, and mere presence without this is not enough.