2015 Supreme(SC) 9

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. EQBAL, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Inder Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.493-495 OF 2009 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos.1238 of 2009; 1239 of 2009; 1241 of 2009; 1194 of 2011; and 1892 of 2011
Decided on : 06-01-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Conviction can be sustained if based on even one eye witness if reliable.
Non-explanation of injuries to accused persons by prosecution is not fatal if defence does not disclose or suggest the genesis of those injuries.
Common object of unlawful assembly can be gathered from facts and conduct of accused persons.
In case of commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in question.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – No independent witness coming forward to depose – Not surprising given the large number of assailants who daringly murdered four persons in day light in presence of large number of people – The six eye witnesses giving consistent and cogent evidence – Supported by medical evidence – No infirmity in conviction – Conviction can be based on even a sole eye witness. (Para 12)

       (b) Criminal trial – Injuries of accused persons – Not explained by prosecution – Defence not disclosing or even suggesting circumstances and time of injuries to some of the accused persons – Nothing brought on record to show injuries sustained during and at place of occurrence – Objection rightly rejected by courts below. (Para 13)

       (2009) 12 SCC 757; (1976) 4 SCC 394 – Distinguished

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object – Overt acts of accused persons – Group of appellants chasing and murdering four persons and injuring the informant – Rightly designated unlawful assembly having common object of committing the offence – The unlawful assembly carrying out its common object of murdering the deceased persons – No error in applying section 149 and convicting the appellants u/s 302 and 307 with aid of section 149. (Para 19, 20)

       (2012) 3 SCC 221; (2011) 9 SCC 257 – Relied upon

       (2011) 5 SCC 324 – Referred

       (d) Criminal trial – Conviction – Large number of accused persons – Conviction can be sustained only if supported by two or more witnesses giving a consistent account of the incident in question – Instantly, 6 eye witnesses deposing in the proceedings – No other witness than the informant naming five appellants Bhagwan Singh, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no.3 in Crl. Appeal No.1239 of 2009); Suresh Kumar, son of Ram Dhakad (appellant no.3 in Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009); Kanhi Ram, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no.4 in Crl. Appeal No.1239 of 2009); Prahlad Singh, son of Nathu Lal (sole appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1241 of 2009); and Ram Prasad, son of Bheru Lal (appellant no.4 in Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009) – All the accused and witnesses from the same village – At least three witness would have named and deposed against these appellants if they were involved – Entitled to benefit of doubt. (Para 22, 23)

       (2012) 12 SCC 711; AIR 1965 SC 202 – Relied upon

       (2013) 5 SCC 753 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       At around 06:45 p.m. of 10.09.2001 Amar Singh (P.W.15) heard cries of his cousin Inder Singh (deceased no.1) from the side of a field known as ‘Patwari ka Khet’. He came out of the house and saw his uncle Maan Singh (accused no.8) and 28 other named accused running behind Inder Singh. They were armed with sword, gun, country-made pistol, lathi and gandasi. They all together killed Inder Singh (deceased no.1). Then they ran towards informant (P.W.15) and caused a sword blow at the wrist of his right hand. On his cries, his father Bapu Singh (deceased no.2) came running to rescue the informant. His uncle Maan Singh fired with his gun due to which Bapu Singh fell down and died in the khaal in presence of everybody. His uncle Manohar Singh (deceased no.4) and his son Nagu Singh (deceased no.3) also came running to save them but the accused persons assaulted them also leading to their death.

       The trial court convicted 24 out of 29 accused for various offences including offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC for which all were awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial court acquitted the appellants of charge under Section 120B of the IPC.

       The appeals preferred by the appellants before the Rajasthan High Court were dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in conviction of 16 appellants.

       Result: Appeals of five appellants allowed and those of the rest dismissed.