G H MANJIT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 554 · Decided: 03-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
MANJIT SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 148, 302/149, 323, 324 and
326/149  – Prosecution under  – Of seven accused (including
appellant-accused ‘M’ and appellant-accused  ‘S’)  –  Initially
charges were not framed by police against appellant-accused ‘M’
and two accused ‘P’ and ‘N’  –  After application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C.
charges were framed against them  –  An application u/s. 321 Cr.P.C.
to withdraw the case against them was declined by the Court  –
Trial Court relying on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses PWs 5
and 6; medical evidence and rejecting the defence plea of alibi and
false implication convicted all the seven accused  –  Appeal to High
court  –  During pendency of the appeal, the Governor granted
pardon u/Art. 161 of the Constitution to the appellant-accused ‘M’
and two accused ‘P’ and ‘N’  –  Grant of pardon also challenged  –
High Court granted benefit of doubt to two accused ‘P’ and ‘N’,
while upholding conviction of other five accused persons  –  Order
granting pardon was also set aside  –  Appeal to Supreme Court by
two of the convicted accused – Held: The prosecution case is
supported by two injured eye-witnesses whose testimony has been
concurrently found reliable by courts below  –  Their testimony is
consistent with the version in FIR and is further corroborated by
the medical evidence  –  Their evidence cannot be discarded merely
for the reason that no independent witness was examined  – Factor
of enmity, pleaded by accused alleging their false implication in the
case, rather supports the prosecution case in proving motive for
commission of the offence  – Plea of alibi is hollow and after-thought
–  In the facts of the case it is proved that the accused persons
acted in concert with a common object and did constitute unlawful
assembly, indulging in rioting with deadly weapons and causing
grievous bodily injuries to members of the complainant party  –
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 554
554
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
Acquittal of the two accused will not have any mitigating effect
leading to acquittal of other accused.
ss. 141 and 149  –  Unlawful assembly – Held: Important
ingredients of an unlawful assembly are number of persons forming
it i.e. 5 and their common object.
Criminal Law:
Common Object – Determination of – Held: The course of
conduct adopted by members of unlawful assembly; their behaviour
and the arms carried by them are a few basic and relevant factors
to determine the common object.
Criminal Trial:
Acquittal of co-accused  – Affect of  –  Held: Acquittal of co-
accused per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of other accused.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. Though in the present case, the 2 acquitted
accused were alleged to be empty handed and were not assigned
the role of causing any injury on any person but, the Trial Court
found it to be a case of common object and these two accused
persons were held guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC as
also of other  offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The High
Court, though agreed with the Trial Court after thorough
examination of the material on record on all the material aspects
but, as regards these two accused persons, in the concluding
part of its discussion, proceeded to extend them the benefit of
doubt.  Though the aforesaid accused persons were acquitted
with benefit of doubt and their acquittal has not been challenged
but then, this fact, by itself, will not have any mitigating effect on
the prosecution case against the other five accused persons,
including the appellants. It remains trite that acquittal of co-
accused per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of the other
accused. Even if the material evidence against all the accused
persons is the same, acquittal of some of them does not lead to a
corollary that the other accused also need to be acquitted. Even
if the involvement of the acquitted accused is considered doubtful
in view of the uncertain role assigned to them, it cannot be said
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
that entire substratum of the prosecution case is lost, or even
whittled down. [Paras 9 and 9.1] [571-D-E; G-H; 572-A-C]
Yanob Sheikh alias Gagu v. State of West Bengal (2013)
6 SCC 428 : [2012] 13 SCR 115 ; Dalbir Singh v. State
of Haryana (2008) 11 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.