Site navigation

In Zainul v. State of Bihar and the connected appeal in Sattar v. State of Bihar, decided in 2025, the…

The Court held that mere presence does not establish membership. The prosecution must prove that the accused shared the assembly’s common object, which may be inferred from…

Choose your answer

In Zainul v. State of Bihar and the connected appeal in Sattar v. State of Bihar, decided in 2025, the Supreme Court examined liability under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Which statement misstates its reasoning?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

The Court held that mere presence does not establish membership. The prosecution must prove that the accused shared the assembly’s common object, which may be inferred from the circumstances.

A mere bystander with no proven common object is outside section 149. Paragraphs 51–54 distinguish that person from an established member who need not have committed a separate overt act.

Option feedback

Option A

Paragraph 54 says presence alone is insufficient without proof the person shared the assembly’s common object.

Option B

Paragraph 54 excludes a mere bystander in these circumstances. That differs from a proven member whose liability need not depend on a separate overt act.

Option C

Paragraph 54 requires proof of shared common object through reasonably direct or indirect circumstances.

Option D

Paragraph 54 says the court should infer common object from the circumstances, such as members’ conduct and how events unfolded.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic