MANMEET SINGH ALIAS GOLDIE versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 24-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 3 S.C.R. 773 
MANMEET SINGH ALIAS GOLDIE 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No.505 Of2015) 
MARCH 24, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALANDAMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 396, 302, 1208 - Dacoity with 
murder - Non-framing of charge of murder - Prosecution C 
case that appellant along with four others committed dacoity 
by using deadly weapon, snatched a huge sum from the 
possession of MS, and in a scuffle MS was shot dead -
Charges framed against them for the offence of conspiracy 
u/s. 120-B, murder u/s. 3021149, and offence punishable ul D 
s. 396 as well and ML exclusively charged for murder u/s. 
302-Acquittal offourothers, however; the appellant convicted 
u/s. 396 for committing dacoity as well as murder of MS and 
sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine by courts below 
- On appeal, held: Pre-condition to perceive an offence of E 
dacoity with murder is a participating assembly of five or more 
persons for the commission of the offence - In absence of 
such an assembly, no such offence is made out rendering 
the conviction therefor of any person in isolation for murder; 
even if proved, impermissible in law -
To convict such a F 
person of the offence only of murder; if proved otherwise, there 
ought to be specific charge to that effect -
On facts, 
prosecution completely failed to either prove the participation 
of five or more persons in the commission of the offence or G 
establish their identity- In absence of a singular charge u/s. 
302 against the appellant sans the assembly, his conviction 
for dacoity with murder punishable uls. 396 not sustainable 
in law- Since the essential pre-requisite of s.391 and 396 
not fulfilled, the conviction and sentence of the appellant set H 
773 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A aside - Appellant acquitted of the charges. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A combined reading of section 391 and 
B 396, IPC would bring to the fore, the essential pre-
requisite of joint participation of five or more persons in 
the commission of the offence of dacoity and if in the 
course thereof any one of them commits murder, all 
members of the assembly, would be guilty of dacoity with 
c murder and would be liable to be punished as enjoined 
thereby. Thus, the indispensable pre-condition to 
perceive an offence of dacoity with murder is a 
participating assembly of five or more persons for the 
commission of the offence. In absence of such an 
D assembly, no such offence is made out rendering the 
conviction therefor of any person in isolation for murder, 
even if proved, impermissible in law. To convict such a 
person of the offence only of murder, if proved otherwise, 
there ought to be specific charge to that effect. An 
E assembly of five or more persons participating in the 
offence is thus the sine qua non for an offence under 
section 396 IPC permitting conviction of any one or more 
members thereof even if others are acquitted for lack of 
F their identity. In absence of such an assembly of five or 
more persons imbued with the common object of 
committing dacoity with murder, any member thereof 
cannot be convicted for the said offence irrespective of 
his/her individual act of murder unless independently 
G and categorically charged for that offence. [Paras 23, 24 
and 27A] (788-H; 789-A-D; 791-D-E] 
1.2 On an assessment of the entire gamut of the 
evidence on record, the inescapable conclusion is that 
H the prosecution failed to prove either the identification 
MANMEET SINGH ALIAS GOLDIE v. STATE OF PUNJAB 775 
of the four co-accused persons or their involvement in A 
the offences as members of the assembly for the offence 
of dacoity with murder. The evidence of PW1, PW3 and 
PW4 if read together also does not unimpeachably prove 
that the appellant was the assailant and that he had fired 
from the pistol in his possession at MS. Their evidence B 
in fact is contradictory in material terms. Not only the 
informant, at the time of the incident, did not know the 
appellant by his name, admittedly it was for the first time 
that he claimed to identify him in court at the trial. The C 
same is the state of PW3 and PW4 as well. [Para 21A] 
(787-F-H; 788-A] 
1.3 The test identification parade held by the 
investigating agency had been discarded and rightly for 0 
being vitiated by contraventio·ns of procedural 
safeguards mandated by law. There is thus, no direct 
evidence as well to establish the culpability of the 
appellant qua any of th

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