SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
MANJIT SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
Vs.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2011
Decided On : 03-09-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Acquittal of a co-accused giving benefit of doubt is not a mitigating circumstance against other accused.
When opinion of the investigating agency has been overruled by judicial pronouncements, production of any evidence to support the same would be unwarranted.
Plea of alibi when not put to prosecution witnesses and the accused himself not taking it I his statement u/s 313 CrPC, cannot be taken before Supreme Court.
Non recovery of weapon of assault will not be material when involvement of the accused is established beyond doubt.
Testimony of injured eye witness does not always need corroboration form independent witnesses.
Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered by conduct of accused persons before, during and after the occurrence.

Headnote:

(a) Criminal trial - Acquittal of a co-accused giving benefit of doubt - Not a mitigating circumstance against other accused. (Para 9)

(b) Criminal trial Appreciation of evidence - Evidence by injured witness - Appellants alleging evidence of PW5 as false evidence because demand of unlawful consideration by the witness was not met by appellant when the former visited the sub jail to meet the appellant - At the same time the appellant trying to discredit PW5 being an interested witness - Contention not acceptable - Evidence of PW5, otherwise consistently supporting prosecution case, cannot be discredited. (Para 10)

(c) Criminal trial - Assault - Medical evidence - Injury report on deceased and injured witnesses, proved by doctor, showing injury by blunt and sharp weapons - Injuries including those on vital parts with sharp weapons and blunt objects - Deceased dying of such injuries after remaining hospitalised for 9 days - Established that injuries in question were inflicted by accused party, with calculated and determined assault on complainant party. (Para 10)

(d) Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Investigation report - Stating that appellants were not present at the place of occurrence - Such opinion overruled right up to Supreme Court - Adducing testimony of DW5, Superintendent of Police referring to investigation report showing absence of appellants form place of occurrence - Unwarranted. (Para 11)

(e) Criminal trial - Plea of alibi - Not even a suggestion as to plea of alibi put to prosecution witnesses - Secondly, appellant in his statement u/s 313 not stating, even remotely, that he was not present at the place of occurrence - Evidence of defence witnesses queer and too unnatural to inspire any confidence - Plea rejected. (Para 12)

(f) Criminal trial - Non recovery of weapon of assault - Having no adverse bearing on prosecution case, where involvement of appellant rather as the leader of the assembly, who started the assault with exhortation and then participated in the assault, stands established beyond doubt. (Para 13)

(g) Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Testimony of injured eye witness - Does not always need corroboration form independent witnesses - Conviction can always be recorded on basis of evidence of injured eye witnesses if found trustworthy and reliable. (Para 13)

(h) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 141 and 149 - At least five accused including appellant assembling at the spot - Appellant exhorting to attack complainant party - Blows hurled by accused persons on complainant party of wide range, sufficient force and chosen aims - Held, accused persons acted in concert to ensure causalities amongst members of complainant party - Further held, accused persons constituted unlawful assembly, indulged in rioting in court complex with deadly weapons causing grievous bodily injuries to members of complainant party - Secion 149 rightly applied. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:

Four persons including two deceased were attacked by 5 armed and 2 unarmed accused.

While the other accused persons were charge-sheeted for various offences but, three accused including the present appellant were allegedly found not involved in the crime. These three were later summoned pursuant to an application u/s 319 CrPC.

The accused persons were awarded varying sentences, including that of life imprisonment by the trial court.

The High Court, while extended benefit of doubt to Prem Kumar and Narain Datt, affirmed the conviction of the other five accused persons, including the appellants herein.

Finding of the Court:

Appellant and others have rightly been convicted.

Result: Appeals dismissed.