RANJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 27-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 133 
RANJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1072 of 2006) 
OCTOBER 27, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.148,365,342,323,324 and 3241 
149 - Murder- Allegation that an unlawful assembly indulged 
A 
B 
in rioting and assault with deadly weapons, which resulted in 
C 
death of two persons and grievous injuries to three others -
Trial court convicted 10 accused including the appellants -
High Court acquitted two accused but maintained the 
conviction of the remaining 8 accused - On appeal, held: Two 
injured witnesses deposed alongwith other eye-witnesses 
D 
about the incident - Injury reports were proved - The evidence 
on record and the manner in which the offence has been 
committed makes it crystal clear that the appellants intended 
to kill both deceased - The injuries caused to both the 
deceased had been grievous in nature and inflicted on vital 
E 
parts of their bodies - Merely because some of the accused 
were acquitted by the courts below, the statements of the 
witnesses cannot be diisregarded as a whole, and the 
appellants cannot be actquitted on that basis - Maxims -
Falsus in U,no, Falsus in Omnibus - Inapplicability of, in India, 
F 
Criminal Law - Acr,cused not named in the FIR - Effect 
of - Held: In case the informant fails to name a particular 
accused in the FIR, and the said accused is named at the 
earliest opportunity, when the statements of witnesses are 
recorded, it cannot tilt the balance in favour of the accused. 
G 
Evidence-'.- Number of witnesses required to prove the 
offence by members of a large unlawful assembly - Held: In 
a case involving an unlawful assembly with a very large 
133 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
number of persons, there is no rule of law that states that there 
cannot be any conviction on the testimony of a sole eye-
witness, unless the court is of the view that the testimony of 
such sole eye-witness is not reliable -Though, generally it is 
a rule of prudence followed by the courts that a conviction may 
B not be sustained if it is not supported by two or more witnesses 
who give a consistent account of the incident, in a fit case the 
court may believe a reliable sole eye-witness if in his 
testimony he makes specific reference to the identity of the 
individual and his specific overt acts in the incident - The rule 
c of requirement of more than one witness applies only in a 
case where a witness deposes in a general and vague 
manner, or in the case of a riot. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 32 and 157 - Statement under 
s.32 recorded -Injured witness survives - Effect of- Held: In 
D such an eventuality, the statement so recorded has to be 
treated as of a superior quality/high degree than that of a 
statement recorded under s. 161 Cr.P. C. and can be used as 
provided under s157 of the Evidence Act - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.161. 
E 
According to the prosecution, the accused persons 
formed an unlawful assembly and indulged in rioting and 
assault with deadly weapons, which resulted in the death 
of two persons and grievous injuries to three others. The 
F Session Court convicted 10 accused under sections 148, 
365, 342, 323, 324 and 3241149 IPC and awarded them life 
imprisonment alongwith other punishments. All the 10 
convicts preferred criminal appeal, upon which the High 
Court acquitted two accused - A.2 and A.20, however, it 
G maintained the conviction and sentences of the 
remaining 8 accused. 
H 
Out of the said 8 accused, only 5 convicts (A.3, A.14, 
A.17, A.18 and A.22) approached the Supreme Court by 
filing the instant appeal. During the pendency of the 
, 
RANJIT "SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA 
135 
PRADESH 
appeal, A-17 died. The other four appellants challenged 
A 
their conviction, inter alia, on various grounds, viz. that 
the name of A-18 was not mentioned in the FIR; that none 
of the other appellants had been named by more than 
one witness as being involved in the case, and, in 
respect of some of the accused, the evidence of the 
B 
witness had been disbelieved by the courts below, thus, 
it was not proper for the High Court to maintain the 
conviction of the appellants on the basis of the same 
evidence; that an the witnesses were partisan and had 
falsely implicated the appellants because of enmity; and c 
that the first informant, who lodged the FIR, could not be 
examined as he died during the c

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