Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, in Babu and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2026 LiveLaw (AB) 450], delivered an important judgment on the concept of a “free fight” in criminal law. Justice Sanjiv Kumar held that where the evidence does not clearly establish which party initiated a violent clash, the incident must be treated as a free fight, making each participant individually responsible for his or her own acts rather than liable through the doctrine of common object.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated June 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lalitpur, convicting twelve persons under Sections 147, 323/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were released on probation for one year under the Probation of Offenders Act. Challenging their conviction, the accused approached the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, six appellants passed away, resulting in the abatement of proceedings against them. The appeal therefore survived only in respect of six appellants—four women and two men.

The dispute originated from a long-standing conflict over ownership and possession of approximately 6.45 acres of agricultural land. According to the prosecution, the accused attempted to harvest crops from the disputed land, leading to a violent confrontation between both groups armed with lathis and sickles. Members of both sides sustained injuries, while two persons from the accused side lost their lives, resulting in a separate murder case against members of the informant’s party.

The principal issue before the High Court was whether the prosecution had established the existence of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object and whether the evidence justified the conviction of all surviving appellants.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was submitted that the dispute arose out of a contested claim over agricultural land and that the prosecution had not established which party was in lawful possession or who had actually sown the crop. In the absence of such proof, it could not be concluded that the accused were the aggressors or that the informant’s side was exercising any right of private defence.

The appellants further argued that the evidence disclosed a mutual fight between rival groups rather than a unilateral attack. They contended that both parties suffered injuries and that even two persons from the accused side had died in the incident, leading to the registration of a cross-case for murder against members of the informant’s party. This, according to the appellants, demonstrated that the occurrence was a free fight and not an attack by one unlawful assembly upon innocent victims.

The four women appellants specifically submitted that no reliable evidence showed their active participation in the assault. It was argued that although they were present at the scene, the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted during cross-examination that the women neither carried weapons nor assaulted anyone. Consequently, there was no material to establish either individual criminal liability or their membership of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object.

The State opposed the appeal and supported the findings of the trial court. It argued that the prosecution witnesses consistently established the participation of the accused persons in the incident and that the convictions recorded by the trial court were based on credible ocular evidence. The prosecution further submitted that the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, coupled with the injuries sustained by the informant’s side, justified their conviction under the provisions relating to unlawful assembly and voluntarily causing hurt.

Court’s Judgment:

Allowing the appeal in part, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the four surviving women appellants while affirming the conviction of the two surviving male appellants.

Justice Sanjiv Kumar first examined the circumstances in which the incident occurred. The Court found that there was an admitted dispute regarding ownership and possession of the agricultural land. It observed that litigation concerning the land was already pending between the parties and that the prosecution had failed to establish who had actually cultivated the maize crop or who was in lawful possession of the disputed property.

The Court held that because the prosecution failed to prove ownership or possession of either the land or the standing crop, it was impossible to conclude that the informant’s side was entitled to exercise the right of private defence of property. Similarly, the evidence did not establish that the accused were the aggressors who initiated the violence.

In these circumstances, the High Court applied the settled principle governing “free fights.” It observed that where the evidence does not clearly identify the aggressor and both sides voluntarily participate in a violent clash, the occurrence must be treated as a free fight. In such cases, criminal liability cannot automatically be imposed upon every participant through the doctrine of common object. Instead, each individual must answer only for his or her own proven acts.

Applying this principle, the Court carefully examined the evidence relating to the four women appellants. It found material inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding their role. More importantly, even the injured witnesses admitted during cross-examination that the women neither wielded weapons nor assaulted anyone during the incident.

The Court observed that mere presence at the place of occurrence is insufficient to establish criminal liability unless supported by evidence of active participation or proof that the person shared the common object of an unlawful assembly. Since no such evidence existed against the four women, the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to all four women appellants and acquitted them of every charge, holding that neither their participation in the assault nor their common object with the remaining accused had been established.

The position of the two surviving male appellants, however, stood on a different footing. The High Court found that reliable and consistent eyewitness testimony specifically attributed overt acts to both Bhajan Lal and Ramanand during the clash. Their active participation was clearly established through ocular evidence and remained unaffected by the deficiencies relating to the prosecution’s case against the women.

The Court therefore upheld their conviction. Since the trial court had already extended the benefit of probation, the High Court directed both surviving male appellants to appear before the trial court within one month for execution of bonds to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year in accordance with the Probation of Offenders Act.

The judgment reiterates an important principle of criminal jurisprudence that where evidence fails to disclose the aggressor in a group clash, the incident is treated as a free fight. In such situations, courts must avoid mechanically applying the concept of unlawful assembly or common object and instead determine the criminal liability of each accused individually on the basis of reliable evidence.

The decision also reinforces the principle that criminal conviction cannot rest merely upon presence at the scene of occurrence. The prosecution must establish active participation or a shared common object beyond reasonable doubt. Where evidence is uncertain or contradictory, particularly regarding individual roles, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.