When someone who sustained gunshot injuries and profusely bleeding was attacked again and the persons who attempted to come to his rescue were also attacked the only inference that can be drawn from such circumstances is that the common object was to do away with the life of that person. In the facts and circumstances, revealed from the evidence appreciated by the courts below the conclusion arrived by them that the unlawful assembly was having the common object to commit murder of Dalip Singh cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Held, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein, confirming the conviction and sentences passed against him. Principles summarized regarding liability of member of unlawful assembly and who is found to share its common object, in absence of overt act and determination of common object of such unlawful assembly.
[Gurmail Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 10 SCC 684]