Does taking cognizance without committal vitiate the trial?

Not by itself. Non-compliance with Section 193 CrPC vitiates a trial only if it causes prejudice or a failure of justice.

What must be proved for Section 149 IPC?

There must be proof of a common object and that members knew the offence was likely. Mere presence is not enough.

Which precedents were clarified?

The Court affirmed State of M.P. v. Bhooraji and overruled conflicting views in Moly and Vidyadharan to that extent.

Were all accused convicted?

No. Only those proven to have actively assaulted were convicted; others were acquitted due to lack of proof of participation/common object.

Does failure to send FIR copy under Section 157 CrPC void the case?

No, unless it raises real doubt about the prosecution’s authenticity. Procedural lapses alone are not enough.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

151

Section 193 CrPC & Section 149 IPC — Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 543 | The Law Easy

Rattiram & Others v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 543

Criminal Procedure & IPC Sec. 193 CrPC • Sec. 149 IPC India Supreme Court of India 2012 (2012) 4 SCC 543 ~7 min

```

Author: Gulzar Hashmi
Location: India
Published: 02 Nov 2025
Slug: rattiram-and-ors-v-state-of-mp-2012-4-scc-543

```

CASE_TITLE: Rattiram & Others v. State of M.P. PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 193 CrPC, Section 149 IPC, common object, failure of justice SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: committal, unlawful assembly, State of M.P. v. Bhooraji PUBLISH_DATE: 02 Nov 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court clarified two things. First, no committal to the Sessions Court (Section 193 CrPC) does not automatically kill the trial—only if it causes prejudice/failure of justice. Second, to convict under Section 149 IPC, the prosecution must prove a common object or knowledge that the offence was likely. Mere presence at the scene is not enough. Some accused were acquitted for lack of proof of common object, while the active assailants’ convictions stood.

Concept art showing committal procedure and common object under Section 149 IPC

Issues

Was the trial vitiated because the Special/Additional Sessions Judge took direct cognizance without committal (Section 193 CrPC)?
Was the conviction under Section 149 IPC proper for all accused, or did some lack proof of a shared common object?

Rules

Section 193 CrPC: Breach does not void the trial unless it causes prejudice or failure of justice. The Court preferred State of M.P. v. Bhooraji; conflicting views in Moly and Vidyadharan were overruled to that extent.
Section 149 IPC: Prosecution must prove common object and that members knew the offence was likely. Presence alone is insufficient.
Section 157 CrPC: Non-sending of FIR copy does not vitiate proceedings unless it casts real doubt on prosecution authenticity.

Facts (Timeline)

29 Sep 1995: After a wrestling event at Kher Mata temple (Sagar, M.P.), Dhruv Daulat stops at Gorelal’s shop. Accused emerge from Chhotelal’s house and assault him.

Hospital: Despite help, Dhruv succumbs to injuries. FIR lodged; case starts.

Charges: Initially SC/ST Act sec. 3(1)(x). Trial proceeds under 147, 148, 302/149 IPC.

Trial Court: Additional Sessions Judge convicts all under 302/149 IPC, life imprisonment + ₹1000 fine.

High Court: Upholds most convictions; Gorelal acquitted; rejects argument on lack of committal (relies on Bhooraji).

Supreme Court: Examines Section 193 CrPC objection and 149 IPC evidence; resolves precedent conflict.

Timeline graphic of events from assault to Supreme Court decision

Arguments

Appellants (Accused)

Trial vitiated: Special Judge took direct cognizance without committal (violates Sec. 193 CrPC).
149 IPC wrongly applied to all: no proof of common object for several accused; mere presence at spot.
Procedural lapses (e.g., Sec. 157 FIR copy) cast doubt on the case.

Respondent (State)

Even if committal missed, no prejudice shown → trial stands (Bhooraji principle).
Active role and shared object proven against key assailants; others’ roles evaluated on evidence.
Minor procedural lapses do not defeat an otherwise credible prosecution.

Judgment (Supreme Court)

Section 193 CrPC: Non-committal does not ipso facto vitiate the trial; accused must show prejudice/failure of justice. Bhooraji affirmed; contrary views in Moly/Vidyadharan curtailed.
Section 149 IPC: Conviction sustained only for those proven to have actively assaulted or clearly shared the common object (Chhotelal, Dhaniram, Mohan, Badri, Govardhan). Others (Ramesh, Kanchedi, Rattiram, Satyanarayan) acquitted for lack of proof.
Section 157 CrPC: Lapse in sending FIR copy did not undermine the case.

Ratio Decidendi

No prejudice, no vitiation: Procedural bar in Sec. 193 is not fatal absent prejudice. Common object is essential: Sec. 149 needs proof of shared object or knowledge; presence alone will not do.

Why It Matters

Prevents technical acquittals where there is no real prejudice.
Guards against over-broad use of Sec. 149 IPC by insisting on common object.
Clarifies precedent conflict and sets a stable rule for trials before Special/Sessions Judges.

Key Takeaways

Sec. 193 CrPC: Show prejudice or failure of justice to vitiate the trial.
Sec. 149 IPC: Prove common object/knowledge; mere presence ≠ guilt.
Evidence-first: Separate active assailants from mere bystanders.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Committal? Prove Prejudice; Crowd needs Object” — CPPCO.

Committal: Missing committal alone ≠ fatal.
Prove Prejudice: Show real injustice.
Crowd’s Object: Unlawful assembly needs a common object for 149.

IRAC Outline

Issue: (i) Is the trial void without committal? (ii) Was 149 IPC properly applied to all?

Rule: Sec. 193 breach vitiates only if prejudice; 149 needs common object/knowledge.

Application: No prejudice from direct cognizance; only some accused shown to act/know.

Conclusion: Trial valid; convictions limited to proven assailants; others acquitted.

Glossary

Committal (Sec. 193 CrPC): Sending a case by a Magistrate to the Court of Session for trial.
Common Object (Sec. 149 IPC): Shared aim of an unlawful assembly; liability extends if members knew offence was likely.
Failure of Justice: Real prejudice affecting fairness or outcome of the trial.

FAQs

No. It is not automatically invalid. The accused must show actual prejudice or failure of justice.

Acts, conduct, weapons, prior enmity, or circumstances showing that members shared the aim or knew the offence was likely.

No. Mere presence is not enough. There must be proof of participation or shared object/knowledge.

```

Comment

Nothing for now