‘Each Member of Unlawful Assembly Vicariously Liable’: SC Upholds Life Term for 3 in 1999 Pune Murder

The Supreme Court on October 29, 2025, upheld the life imprisonment awarded to three men convicted in a 1999 murder case from Pune, affirming the Bombay High Court’s decision that reversed their acquittal and found them guilty under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi said, "It is not necessary for each member of the unlawful assembly to have committed a specific overt act and once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed".  

Court dismissed the appeals filed by Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse (accused no. 3), Rajendra Bhivrao Shirwale (accused no. 4) and Subhash Raghunath Pawar (accused no. 6), who had challenged their conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court in February 2011.

A violent incident took place on April 27, 1999, following a wedding celebration at Village Kari in Pune District. The prosecution said the six accused, armed with knives and a sattur, intercepted a jeep carrying Ankush Gholap and his companions, dragged them out, and launched a brutal assault. Ankush died on the spot, while two others namely Rajendra Gholap and Shivaji Sanas, suffered grievous injuries.

The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Praveen Chaudhary confirmed that Ankush’s death resulted from haemorrhagic shock caused by multiple incised wounds on vital organs. The prosecution examined 27 witnesses, including three eyewitnesses namely Sopan Gholap (PW-1), Rajendra Gholap (PW-7), and Shivaji Sanas (PW-9), all of whom consistently identified the accused in court and described the sequence of the assault in detail.

In May 2001, the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, had convicted two accused (Pandharinath Gholap and Maruti Gholap) for murder and attempt to murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting three others (including the present appellants) due to insufficient evidence. However, on appeal, the Bombay High Court overturned those acquittals, finding that the accused formed part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit murder.

Challenging the decision, the appellants argued that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and interfered with a plausible acquittal. Their counsel contended that contradictions existed in the eyewitness statements, no weapon was recovered from Kharuse, and Subhash Pawar was not named in the FIR. It was further argued that the minimum threshold of five members under Section 141 IPC was not met, as one accused had been acquitted.

Rejecting these contentions, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s interference was justified, as the trial court had “misappreciated evidence” and ignored “consistent and credible” eyewitness and medical testimony.

"The trial court overlooked the consistent and corroborated testimony of injured eyewitnesses and failed to appreciate the legal effect of the active participation of the appellants as members of an unlawful assembly. The High Court, in reversing the acquittal, has given cogent and well-reasoned findings based on a proper appraisal of the record,'' the bench said.

The bench found that the accused arrived together on two motorbikes, armed with sharp weapons, and actively participated in the coordinated attack.

“The cumulative evidence clearly shows that the appellants were not passive spectators but active participants and facilitators in a deliberate and planned assault,” the Court said, holding them vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC.

"The medical findings align perfectly with the ocular evidence and highlight the brutal and coordinated nature of the attack. The timing, nature and multiplicity of injuries clearly indicate a deliberate and orchestrated assault executed in furtherance of a common unlawful object. The harmony between the medical and ocular evidence leaves no scope for doubt as to the active participation of the appellants in the premeditated attack,'' the bench said.

Court thus upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit.

Case Title: Haribhau alias Bhausaheb Dinkar Kharuse & Anr Vs The State of Maharashtra

Judgment Date: October 29, 2025

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi