LexMANJIT SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 107 MANJIT SINGH & ANR. V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2042 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 [DIPAK MISRA AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021307 rlw s. 34 - Firing of gunshots - Causing injuries to PW1 and death of his brother A B - Five accused- Conviction of A-1 and A-2 i.e. the appellants C - Justification - Held: PWs-1 and 2, brother and father of the deceased, deposed in a vivid manner about the culpability of the accused persons in the crime - Non-examination of two witnesses did not affect the trustworthiness of PltVs-1 and 2 - Though there was some embellishment by Pl/1-1, the D informant, and the other witnesses but that did not make the whole prosecution version untruthful - Non-seizure of blood- stained clothes and blood stains did not create dent in the prosecution version - The autopsy surgeon, PllV-3, clearly opined that deceased had died because of gunshot injuries E - The FSL report was clear - As per the FSL report. shots were fired from the wec:pons sent to the laboratory - Cogent evidence that the weapons belonged to accused-appellants and licenses were issued in their favour - Thus, ocular testimony of PWs-1 and 2 received clear corroboration from F the medical evidence as well as from the report of the FSL - Conviction of the appellants accordingly affirmed. Penal Code, 1860 - s. 34 - Common intention - Existence of - When may be inferred - Death of PW1 's brother and injuries caused to PW1 due to gun shots fired by G the accused persons - Conviction of the two accused- appellants (A-1 and A-2) uls.3021307 rlw s.34 - Plea that A-2 could not have been convicted with the aid of s.34 IPC- Held: 107 H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A Not tenable - Scrutiny of the evidence made it clear that A-2 had accompanied A-1 and was present at the spot; that he had carried a weapon; that it was established by the prosecution that cartridges had been fired from his gun; and that both the appellants were closely.related - Thus, the 8 cumulative facts clearly establish that A-2 shared the common intention with A-1. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Case pertaining to murder and attempt to murder - Five accused - A-4 and A- 5 acquitted by trial court - A-3 acquitted by High Court - Plea C that High Court e"ed in affirming the acquittal recorded by the trial Judge in respect of A-4 and A-5 and further erred in acquitting A-3 - Held: Not tenable - Jn the facts and circumstances of the case, the view expressed by the trial Judge in acquitting A-4 and A-5 and further the acquittal D recorded by High Court acquitting A-3 was based on cogent reasoning and was a plausible view - Once a plausible view has been expressed and there has been proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the acquittal does not warrant any interference - Penal Code, 1860 - s.3021307 rlw s.34. E Evidence - Witness ·- Non-examination of - Effect - Held: It is not the number and quantity of witnesses, but the quality that is material - Duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record which inspires confidence and the same has to be accepted and acted upon F - In such a situation no adverse inference should be drawn from the fact of non-examination of other witnesses - It is also to be seen whether such non-examination of a witness would carry the matter further so as to affect the evidence of other witnesses and if the evidence of a witness is really not G essential to the unfolding of the prosecution case, it cannot be considered a material witness - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.134. Evidence - Appreciation and evaluation of - Concept of H MANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 109 , proof beyond reasonable doubt - Held: Cannot be made to A appear totally unrealistic. Maxims - Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - Held: Is not applicable in India - It is merely a rule of caution - All that it amounts to is, that in such cases testimony may be 8 disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded - Unless the entire case of the prosecution suffers from infirmities, discrepancies and material contradictions and the prosecution utterly fails to establish its case, acquittal of some accused persons cannot be a relevant facet to determine the C guilt of other accused persons - Evidence - Discrepancies in - Appreciation of. The prosecution case was that while PW1 was sitting on the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.