SURINDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 08-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SURINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
THE ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST 8, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: Murder-Five persons allegedly involved-Main accused 
eluded arrest-Declared Proclaimed Offender-Trial in the absence of main 
accused-Conviction of two accused uls 302 rlw Section 34 and acquittal of C 
remaining two accused-Main accused apprehended, tried separately and 
acquitted-No appeal preferred-However, appeal preferred by the convicted 
accused-Held, acquittal of main accused, even though wrongly, does not 
ipso facto impede the conviction of other accused and vice versa-Fatal injuries 
on the body of the deceased inflicted by the main accused after appellant 
released the hands of the deceased and thus not facilitating the main accused- D 
Jn absence of any concrete evidence to prove any intention/pre-meditation to 
commit murder and also on the ground of acquittal of main accused, appellant 
entitled to benefit of doubt and thus exonerated-Penal Code, I 860; Ss. 34, 
201 and 511/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful night when the deceased, 
in a drunken condition, abused accused and others in filthy language, 
accused, also in a drunken condition, had beaten him. PW7 and others 
intervened and got them separated. Later, one of the accused dragged the 
deceased to the house of another accused, the main accused. On hearing 
E 
the cry of the deceased, PW7 and others went inside the house of the main F 
accused and saw him sitting on the chest of the deceased and throttling 
him whereas the accused-appellant, brother of the deceased, was holding 
the deceased from his arms and other accused gave fist blows to the 
deceased. PW7 also noticed that the main accused had given kick blows 
on the testicles of the deceased. The deceased died on the next day.' An G 
FIR was lodged against appellant and four others for having allegedly 
committed the murder of the deceased. The main accused, eluded arrest, 
and was declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO). Trial Court, in the absence 
of the P.O., tried other accused and found only two of them, including 
appellant, guilty of having committed offences u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC; 
convicted and sentenced them accordingly and acquitted other two H 
359 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A accused. 
Later, the P.O. was also arrested and tried for offences under 
Sections 302 and 34 IPC; however, prosecution witnesses turned hostile 
in the trial. Hence, he was acquitted by the Trial Court. State did not 
prefer any appeal. The other accused unsuccessfully preferred an appeal 
B against their conviction before the High Court. Hence the present appeal 
preferred by the two accused. Since one of them died, his name was 
deleted. 
It was contended for the appellant that when the main accused gave 
C fatal blows on the testicles of the deceased and he was acquitted, conviction 
of the appellant for offences u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC was not justified, 
particularly in the absence of any premeditated scheme/design to kill the 
deceased. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In a criminal act, where several persons are engaged or 
concerned in the commission of it, they may be guilty of different offences 
by means of their own acts. No doubt when such criminal act is done by 
several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such 
persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him 
E alone. If an· offence is committed by any member of an "unlawful 
assembly" in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such 
as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committing of 
that object, every person who at the time of committing of that offence, is 
a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. The fact that 
p any one of them may at times even stood wrongly acquitted and no appeal 
was preferred by the State against such acquittal does not ipso facto impede 
the conviction of the other accused. Equally the conviction of one such 
does not automatically result in the conviction of every one involved in 
the occurrence, even de hors their actual role, the general and basic 
pri9ciple of criminal liability being that only that person, who commits 
G the crime, would be held guilty and punished, except in cases where the 
concept of vicarious liability is recognized under law - to that extent and 
that too subject 

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