# MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [2019] 11 S.C.R. 554
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-09-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2011
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manjit-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-33061
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

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 coaccused 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 coaccused 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,954 of 73,202. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39954 for what follows._

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 coaccused 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 coaccused 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 SCC 425 : [2008] 8 SCR 1026
- relied on.
2. The case of the prosecution on material accusations
pivots around the testimony of injured eye-witnesses PW-5 and
PW-6. PW-5 has deposed in conformity with the initial version of
the complainant on the basis whereof, the FIR in question came
to be registered. This witness has testified to the role of each of
the accused in the incident in question. Nothing material has come
out in the cross-examination to discredit this witness. PW5 had
also been one of the injured persons in the incident, having
received the blows from the appellant-accused 'M'. In the face
of such a fact situation, the suggestion by the defence, that this
witness offered support to them for unlawful consideration, could
only be rejected as baseless. The Trial Court and the High Court
have concurrently found his testimony reliable; and there is no
reason to take any different view of the matter. The narration of
the incident by PW-6 has also been consistent with the version
occurring in the FIR as also that occurring in the statement of
PW-5. He had also been an injured person in the same incident
and there is nothing on record to disbelieve or discredit this
witness. [Paras 10.1 and 10.2] [572-E-F; H; 573-A-C]
3. So far as the medico-legal aspect of the matter is
concerned, PW-1, the doctor who had examined the injured
person immediately after the incident, has proved the respective
injury reports. The facts stand established that the deceased and
the other members of the complainant party received many and
multiple injuries, including those on the vital body parts from
sharp-edged weapons (as also blunt objects). It is also established
that the deceased died due to the grievous head injury. Though
he died after 9 days from the date of the incident but continuously
remained hospitalised and was never in a position to make any
statement. The fact that the injuries in question were inflicted by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
the accused party, with calculated and determined assault on the
complainant party, has also been duly established on record. The
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court against
the accused persons remain proper and do not appear suffering
from any infirmity. [Paras 10.3 and 10.4] [573-C; F-G]
4.1 According to the defence witness, DW 5, a complaint
was filed before him to the effect that appellant-accused 'M' and
the acquitted accused were not present on the spot during the
incident in question. This testimony had not only been irrelevant
but had also been totally unwarranted. The Trial Court did
exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC for proceeding
against these persons. The prosecution even endeavoured to
withdraw the case against the appellant and the acquitted accused
persons, but the prayer was declined by the Trial Court, and the
attempts to challenge this order of the Trial Court also failed
right upto this Court. In such a position, where the opinion stated
in the investigation result qua these persons stood overruled by
the judicial order, it had been absolutely unwarranted that such
an overruled opinion was sought to be relied upon by way of the
testimony of DW-5. Even if this opinion and whatever stated in
the report sent by this witness [Ex. DA] are taken on their
face value, nothing whatsoever turns upon them. [Para 11.2]
[574-D-G]
4.2 The Trial Court, after thorough appreciation of entire
record has rejected the suggestion that the appellant was not
present at the scene of crime. The High Court has also observed
that there was no reliable evidence on record to accept the plea
of alibi. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly rejected
such a baseless plea after proper appreciation of the evidence on
record. [Para 12] [575-B-C]
4.3 There are two fundamental, and rather fatal,
shortcomings in the plea of alibi of the appellant-accused 'M'
First, that such a plea was not even put in suggestion to the
relevant prosecution witnesses including the injured eyewitnesses PW-5 and PW-6. Secondly, and significantly, in his own
statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant-accused 'M'
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
even while making elaborate assertions that he was falsely
implicated for having stood against the complainant party in
relation to the rape and murder case, and while also relying upon
the earlier police report where he was sought to be exonerated
and earlier attempt on the part of the prosecution to withdraw
the case against him, not even remotely stated that he was not
present at the site and that, at the relevant point of time, he was
present somewhere else. [Para 12.1] [575-D-F]
4.4 The conduct of witness DW-9 and most of the other
witnesses examined in defence in relation to the plea of alibi, had
been queer and too unnatural to inspire any confidence. Mere
suggestion in the negative by defence witnesses that they did
not see the three accused persons [appellant-accused 'M' and 2
acquitted accused] on the spot does not displace the cogent and
trustworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Trial Court
and High Court have rightly discarded these witnesses as being
wholly unreliable. The plea of alibi, in the facts of the case could
only be rejected as a crude afterthought and nothing else. Thus,
viewed from any angle, the plea of alibi, as put forward by
appellant-accused 'M' remains hollow and could only be rejected.
[Paras 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5] [577-E; 578-C, D, G]
5. It is not correct to say that the crime is not established
against appellant-accused 'M' for want of recovery of weapon of
offence. The IO in the first place did make recoveries on the
disclosure statements of other four accused persons. As regards
the appellant, the IO chose to proceed in the direction that he
was innocent and was falsely implicated. That seems to be the
fundamental reason for the IO not making any attempt for
recovery of the weapon of offence used by the appellant-accused
'M'. However, this omission has no adverse bearing on the
prosecution case, where involvement of the appellant rather as
the leader of the assembly, who started the assault with
exhortation and then participated in the assault, stands established
beyond doubt. [Para 13] [578-H; 579-A-B]
6. The appellant-accused 'M' cannot be said to have been
falsely implicated due to enmity. In the circumstances of the
present case, if anything of so-called enmity is to be taken into
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
559
consideration, the same equally operates against the appellantaccused 'M' and his companions, as admittedly, the appellantaccused 'M' was keenly pursuing the case of rape and murder of
a village girl and the complainant party was comprising of the
persons related with the accused in the said case. The factor of
enmity would only lend support to the prosecution case towards
the object and motive of the assembly to attack, assault and cause
hurt to the members of the complainant party. [Para 13.1]
[579-C-D]
7. In the present case, the reliable evidence of the injured
eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely for the reason that no
independent witness was examined. There is no rule that in every
criminal case, the testimony of an injured eye-witness needs
corroboration from the so-called independent witness(es). When
the statement of injured eye-witness is found trustworthy and
reliable, the conviction on that basis could always be recorded,
having regard to all the facts and surrounding factors. [Para 13.2]
[579-E-F]
8.1 The important ingredients of an unlawful assembly are
the number of persons forming it i.e., five; and their common
object. Common object of the persons composing that assembly
could be formed on the spur of the moment and does not require
prior deliberations. The course of conduct adopted by the
members of such assembly; their behaviour before, during, and
after the incident; and the arms carried by them are a few basic
and relevant factors to determine the common object. [Para 14.5]
[584-D-E]
8.2 The facts of the present case, as established by the
prosecution, makes it clear that on the relevant date and at the
relevant time, at least five of the accused persons, including the
present appellants were present at the place of the incident i.e.
Court Complex. The members of the complainant party
purportedly came to the very same Court Complex to attend the
hearing of the rape and murder case of the village girl in which,
their kiths and relatives were the accused persons and the case
was being pursued by appellant-accused 'M'. It is also established
that when the persons related with the complainant party were
about to board their vehicle, the accused persons attacked them
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
with weapons. Significantly, the attack on the complainant party
was triggered with exhortation by appellant-accused 'M'. This
clearly brings out the motive for the attack as also the object of
the assembly. It is beyond the pale of doubt that the accused
persons had acted in concert and the object had clearly been to
ensure causalities amongst the members of the complainant party.
On the applicable principles, it is concluded that the accused
persons did constitute an unlawful assembly; did indulge in rioting
in the Court Complex with deadly weapons; and did cause
grievous bodily injuries to members of the complainant party.
The deceased was attacked rather repeatedly by the members of
this unlawful assembly and he sustained grievous injury on the
head that proved fatal. The background aspects as also the conduct
of the accused persons at and during the incident leaves nothing
to doubt that each of the member of this assembly remains liable
for the offence committed by himself as also by every other
member of the assembly. [Para 14.6] [584-F-H; 585-A, C-E]
Govind Singh v. State of Chattisgarh (2019) 7 SCALE
20 - distinguished.
Sikandar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2010) 7 SCC
477 : [2010] 8 SCR 373 ; Subal Ghorai v. State of West
Bengal (2013) 4 SCC 607 ; Sahabuddin & Ors. v. State
of Assam (2012) 13 SCC 213 : [2012] 13 SCR 1067
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 8 SCR 373
referred to
Para 6.1
(2013) 4 SCC 607
referred to
Para 6.1
(2019) 7 SCALE 20
distinguished
Para 6.2
[2012] 13 SCR 1067
referred to
Para 7
[2012] 13 SCR 115
relied on
Para 9.1
[2008] 8 SCR 1026
relied on
Para 9.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1079 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 373 DB
of 2005.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2011.
Kamini Jaiswal, Jatinderpal Singh, Ms. Rani Mishra, Vijay
Panjwani, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Ms. Ashima Mandla,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the
common judgment and order dated 11.03.2008, as passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.
373 DB of 2005 and 350 DB of 2005 with other connected matters
whereby, the High Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 28/
30.03.2005 by the Sessions Judge, Barnala in Sessions Case No. 21 of
2001, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for multiple
offences, including those punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 323,
324 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').
2. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are
as follows:
2.1. The prosecution case has been that on 03.03.2001, the
deceased Dalip Singh, Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-5), Gurnam Singh (PW6) and the complainant Beant Singh1, all residents of Village Mehal Kalan
had gone to Barnala Court Complex in connection with the hearing in a
criminal case pertaining to FIR No. 67 of 1997, Police Station Mehal
Kalan, that was adjourned. That very day, the accused persons Manjit
Singh2, Labh Singh, Avtar Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Sukhwinder Singh3,
1 The complainant Beant Singh was examined as the first witness in the trial but he
expired before completion of his statement.
2 The appellant of Cr. A. No. 1079 of 2011
3 The appellant of Cr. A. No. 1076 of 2011
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Prem Kumar, and Narain Datt, had also been to the same Court Complex
to attend the proceedings in a complaint case of the appellant Manjit
Singh, that was also adjourned. At about 11.15 a.m., when Gurnam Singh,
Beant Singh, Rajinder Pal Singh and Dalip Singh were about to board
their car near the cabin of typists in the Court Complex, they were
attacked by the accused persons.
2.2. It was alleged that for carrying out the assault in question,
five of the accused persons carried different weapons, where the
appellant Sukhwinder Singh as also Labh Singh and Avtar Singh were
armed with kirpans; Bakhtaur Singh was armed with kirpan and ghop;
and the appellant Manjit Singh was armed with kirch whereas Prem
Kumar and Narain Datt were empty handed. According to the allegations,
with exhortation by the appellant Manjit Singh, the accused persons
carried out the assault in the manner that Labh Singh gave kirpan blow
aiming at the head of Beant Singh, who raised his hands and the blow hit
his right hand; the appellant Sukhwinder Singh aimed his kirpan blow
on the head of Dalip Singh but since he raised his hands, the blow hit his
right hand; Bakhtaur Singh gave a blow of ghop on the head of Dalip
Singh; Prem Kumar and Narain Datt caught hold of the arms of Dalip
Singh and Bakhtaur Singh gave another ghop blow on the head of Dalip
Singh; Avtar Singh gave a blow of his kirpan on the left leg of Gurnam
Singh; Bakhtaur Singh also gave three blows of ghop on the left cheek,
back of the chest and left thigh of Gurnam Singh; the appellant Manjit
Singh gave the blows of his kirch, hitting Rajinder Pal Singh on the right
hand and on the left hand thumb; and the appellant Sukhwinder Singh hit
Gurnam Singh on the back by the handle of his kirpan.
2.3. It was further alleged that upon such an assault, the injured
raised alarm whereupon, Amarjit Singh, Balbir Singh, Jit Singh and
Gurdeep Singh reached the spot. The injured were taken to the hospital.
Upon receiving a message from the hospital, Surinder Pal Singh (PW9), SHO, P.S. Kotwali went to the hospital and sought the opinion of
doctor about fitness of the injured for taking their statements; the injured
Beant Singh was declared fit and his statement was recorded at 2.30
p.m., which led to the registration of FIR No. 56 of 2001 for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 148, 149, 120-B IPC. The statements of
the injured Rajinder Pal Singh and Gurnam Singh were also recorded.
However, the injured Dalip Singh was not found fit for making any
statement; he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala; and he was,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
thereafter, shifted to Dayanand College and Hospital, Ludhiana. He
remained hospitalised until 12.03.2001 but the attempts by ASI Gulab
Singh (PW-11) to record his statement did not materialise. The injured
Dalip Singh, ultimately, expired on 12.03.2001 at 4.30 p.m.; the post
mortem of his dead body was conducted on 13.03.2001 at Civil Hospital,
Ludhiana. In sequel, the offence punishable under Section 302 was added
to the FIR.
2.4. On 08.03.2001, the accused persons Bakhtaur Singh, Labh
Singh and Avtar Singh were arrested. The weapon ghop was recovered
in pursuance of the disclosure statement of Bakhtaur Singh whereas
one kirpan was recovered on the disclosure statement of Labh Singh
and another kirpan was recovered on the disclosure statement of Avtar
Singh. On 14.03.2001, the appellant Sukhwinder Singh was arrested and
in pursuance of his disclosure statement, yet another kirpan was
recovered.
2.5. In the course of investigation, the soil splattered with blood
was collected from the place of occurrence; site plan was prepared;
and statements of other witnesses were recorded. As per the FSL report,
the ghop, three kirpans and soil recovered from the place of occurrence
were found to be stained with human blood.
2.6. On 24.03.2001, while the other accused persons were chargesheeted for various offences but, the present appellant Manjit Singh as
also Prem Kumar and Narain Datt were allegedly found not involved in
the crime and they were kept in column No.2 by the Investigating Officer
('IO'). After committal of the case to the Sessions Court and after
framing of charges, the complainant Beant Singh was examined as the
first witness of the prosecution on 11.09.2001 but his deposition remained
incomplete. This very day, the complainant Beant Singh moved an
application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC')
for proceeding against the appellant Manjit Singh as also against the said
Prem Kumar and Narain Datt, who were summoned by the Trial Court
by its order dated 19.09.2001. Thereafter, charges were framed against
all the accused persons, inter alia, for the offences under Sections 302,
148, 326, 325, 323 IPC. The prosecution sought leave under Section
321 CrPC to withdraw the case against the appellant Manjit Singh and
the said Prem Kumar and Narain Datt but this prayer was declined by
the Trial Court by its order dated 09.11.2002 against which, Cr.R. No.
2413 of 2002 and C.M. No. 2248 of 2002 were filed before the High
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Court that were also dismissed by the order dated 14.10.2003. Further,
the petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 5740 of 2003 filed in this
Court was also dismissed by the order dated 17.01.2004.
3. In the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses,
including the injured eye-witnesses Rajinder Pal Singh as PW-5 and
Gurnam Singh as PW-6; the medical officer Dr. Subhash Singla, who
had initially examined the injured persons and had prepared the injury
reports, as PW-1; and Dr. Jasbir Singh, who had conducted post-mortem
on the dead body of Dalip Singh, as PW-7.
3.1. The eye-witnesses, Rajinder Pal Singh and Gurnam Singh,
PW-5 and PW-6 respectively, gave the ocular account of the entire
incident. PW-5 Rajinder Pal Singh categorically stated that the assault
commenced when the appellant Manjit Singh instigated the other accused
persons to attack the complainant and his companions. This witness
provided a detailed description of participation and involvement of each
of the accused in conformity with the version occurring in the FIR. His
testimony was corroborated on all the material particulars by PW-6
Gurnam Singh. As noticed, the testimony of the informant Beant Singh
remained incomplete due to his demise.
3.2. The appellant Manjit Singh, while denying the allegations in
his statement under Section 313 CrPC, gave a purportedly detailed
account that the complainants were annoyed with Prem Kumar, Narain
Datt and himself for the reason that they had given evidence in the case
of rape and murder of a co-village girl KK*4, where the offence was
allegedly committed by the relatives of the complainant and the injured
witnesses. We shall refer to the relevant part of the statement made by
the appellant Manjit Singh under Section 313 CrPC hereafter a little
later.
3.3. In defence evidence, the accused persons got examined as
many as 13 witnesses. These had been as follows: DW-1 Dr. A.K.
Singla, the handwriting and fingerprint expert in relation to the signatures
of Rajinder Pal Singh on the court summons and jail records; DW-2,
Head Constable Jaswinder Singh in relation to the fact that DW-3 was
deployed as driver of the vehicle in which the undertrials were brought
to the Court Complex; DW-3 Head Constable Jora Singh, as the alleged
4 The name of the said victim girl is not required to be mentioned and she is referred as
KK* herein.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
eye-witness to the incident; DW-4 Gurcharan Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate
who was allegedly present near the scene of crime; DW-5 Lakhwinder
Singh, the then Superintendent of Police (D) at Barnala; DW-6 Constable
Amarjit Singh, another alleged eye-witness who had intervened in the
fight that had occurred between the two groups; DW-7 Head Constable
Gurcharan Singh; DW-8 J.N. Sharma, Advocate; DW-9 Kulwant Singh,
Member Panchayat of Village Dhaner; DW-10 Manjit Singh, teacher in
Govt. High School, Wazidke Khurd; DW-11 Rajinder Kumar ALM, PSEB
Mehar Kalan; DW-12 Darshan Kumar, Head Warden, Sub-Jail, Barnala;
and DW-13 Santokh Singh, Maths Teacher in Govt. High School, Wazidke
Khurd.
4. In its judgment and order dated 28/30.03.2005 in Sessions Case
No. 21 of 2001, the Trial Court carried out in-depth analysis of the
prosecution evidence, including the testimony of injured eye-witnesses
PW-5 and PW-6 and the medical officers, PW-1 and PW-7. The Trial
Court also carried out an equally thorough analysis of the evidence
adduced by the accused and, after finding that the defence witnesses
were either irrelevant or unreliable, rejected the defence theories and
found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused joined together
and attacked the complainant Beant Singh and his companions, causing
various injuries to several persons and fatal injury to Dalip Singh. The
conclusion of the Trial Court in relation to the present appellants as also
cumulatively in relation to all the accused persons, as occurring in
paragraphs 45 to 48 of the judgment dated 28.03.2005, could be usefully
reproduced as under:-
"45. Accused Manjit Singh as per PW1 is proved to have
caused two injuries on the person of Rajinder Pal Singh by
means of Kirch and which M.L.R. Ex. PD and X-ray report
Ex. PD/2 shows that both these injuries No. 1 & 2 are by
sharp means and injury No. 3 which is reddish contusion is
not attributed to any of the accused.
46. Accused Sukhwinder Singh is opined to have caused a
blunt injury by the handle of the Kirpan on the person of
Gurnam Singh on the back of the chest opined to be abraded
contusion ad that Sukhwinder Singh is also proved to have
caused injury to Dalip Singh on right hand by means of a
Kripan and which injury as per M.L.R. Ex. PA which is incised
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
wound, caused by sharp edged weapon is deemed to be simple
in view of lack of evidence in this regard.
47. That there is abundant evidence to show that accused
persons with a common object armed with deadly weapons
have rioted while assaulting the complainant side.
48. So, from the overall evidence of the prosecution by way
of ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses account, the medical
evidence coupled with circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly
point out towards the guilt of the accused in the commission
of the offence for which they have been charged. The accused
are thus held guilty and convicted as detailed below:-
i) All the accused
U/S 148 of IPC
ii) Accused Bakhtaur Singh
U/S 302 and 323 IPC
iii)All the co-accused (Numb 6) of
U/S 302/149 IPC and
accused Bakhtaur Singh
U/S 323/149 IPC
iv) Accused Sukhwinder Singh
U/S 324 IPC & 323
IPC
v) All six co-accused of accused
U/S 324/149 IPC and
Sukhwinder Singh
U/S 323/149 IPC
vi) Accused Labha Singh
U/S 324 IPC
vii) All the six co-accused
U/S 324/149 IPC
viii) Accused Avtar Singh
U/S 326 IPC
ix) All the six co-accused of accused U/S 326/149 IPC
Avtar Singh
x) Accused Manjit Singh
U/S 324 IPC
xi) All the six co-accused of accused
U/S 324/149 IPC
Manjit Singh"
4.1. In accordance with the conclusion aforesaid, the accused
persons were awarded varying sentences, including that of life
imprisonment.
5. Against the order of conviction, the appellants and the coaccused preferred separate appeals before the High Court and pending
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
567
disposal of appeals, the sentence awarded to the appellant Manjit Singh
as also Prem Kumar and Narain Datt were suspended. Thereafter, by
an order dated 24.07.2007, the then Hon'ble Governor of Punjab, in
exercise of his power under Article 161 of the Constitution of India,
granted pardon to the appellant Manjit Singh as also to the two co-accused
persons Prem Kumar and Narain Datt; and directed that they be released
with immediate effect. This order granting pardon was also challenged
before the High Court by way of writ petition bearing No. 2147 of 2008
that was taken up for consideration together with the appeals filed against
conviction. While passing the final common judgment and order dated
11.03.2008, the High Court, after dealing with the contentions urged on
behalf of the appellants herein and the co-accused, while extended benefit
of doubt to Prem Kumar and Narain Datt but, affirmed the conviction of
the other five accused persons, including the appellants herein and also
set aside the order granting pardon5 while observing, inter alia, as under:-
"23. We are of the view that case of the prosecution stands
fully established against Sukhwinder Singh, Labh Singh,
Bakhtaur Singh, Avtar Singh and Manjit Singh, while Narain
Datt and Prem Kumar are entitled to benefit of doubt.
24. PW5 Rajinder Pal Singh has fully supported the version
given in the statement of Beant Singh on the basis of which,
FIR was recorded. He has confirmed the role of all the accused.
Occurrence took place in the broad day light. Identity of the
accused was known to the witnesses. Rajinder Pal Singh is
nephew of the deceased Dalip Singh. FIR was prompt. There
is no improbability in the accused assaulting the deceased
and the witnesses in the manner alleged. There is no serious
infirmity in the evidence of PW5 Rajinder Pal Singh. His
version is consistent and reliable. The assault was clearly remediated as five of the accused came with weapons. His
5 This part of the common judgment dated 11.03.2008, setting aside the order passed
by the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab granting pardon to the appellant Manjit Singh, was
separately challenged in this Court in C.A. Nos. 2058-59 of 2011 [arising out of SLP
(C) No. 11544 of 2008]. On 24.02.2011, this Court remanded the matter to the
Governor of Punjab for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We were informed
during the course of hearing that no fresh decision has been taken after such remand. Be
that as it may, in view of the fact that the subject matter of the present appeals relates
to the conviction and sentencing of the appellants, no further dilation on the matter
relating to the grant of pardon is requisite herein.
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
568
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
version is fully supported by PW6 Gurnam Singh. Though,
cross-examined at length, their testimony remained unshaken.
The version of the said witnesses is duly corroborated by
medical evidence. We are not in agreement with the
observation of the trial Court that evidence of Beant Singh
could be relied upon. Excluding evidence of Beant Singh,
who died before cross-examination, does not in any way affect
the case of the prosecution.
25. Reference to the statement of PW5 Rajinder Pal Singh
shows that Manjit Singh raised an exhortation to the coaccused to take revenge. He was armed with a 'kirch'. Mere
non-recovery of 'kirch' is not by itself of any consequence
once his participation in giving exhortation and causing
assault is established....His role is established by medical
evidence of examination of Rajinder Pal Singh PW5, who
had two injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. Manjit Singh
not only gave one blow but also repeated the blow to Rajinder
Pal Singh. PW-5 Rajinder Pal Singh could not have made
any mistake in implicating Manjit Singh. Contention that
Manjit Singh was implicated on account of enmity, cannot be
accepted. It is well known that enmity is a doubled edged
weapon and the same reason could have provided motive to
Manjit Singh. His role is specific and is duly corroborated.
He was the first to initiate the assault."
5.1. The High Court, after examining the defence evidence as
also other material on record, rejected the defence contentions, including
the plea of alibi of the appellant Manjit Singh, in the following:
"32. We do not find any merit in the contention that the death
of Dalip Singh was not on account of injuries caused by
Bakhtaur Singh but only on account of surgical injuries or
that the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death of Dalip Singh. It is clear that the
death of Dalip Singh was on account of injuries caused by
the accused Bakhtaur Singh. Intention of causing death can
be clearly inferred. Sukhwinder Singh also assaulted Dalip
Singh but he received injuries on the hand instead of on the
head. Though, Labh Singh and Avtar Singh caused injuries
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
to Beant Singh and Gurnam Singh respectively, they cannot
avoid responsibility for the consequences, which could easily
be foreseen by them in respect of injuries caused to Dalip
Singh. Same is the position with regard to accused Manjit
Singh. There is no reliable evidence to accept the plea of
alibi raised by Manjit Singh. We have thus no hesitation in
upholding conviction of Sukhwinder Singh, Labh Singh, Avtar
Singh, Bakhtaur Singh and Manjit Singh."
5.2. After upholding the conviction and the sentence of five of the
accused persons including the appellants, the High Court also examined
the question of validity of the order granting pardon to the appellant
Manjit Singh and in that regard, after a detailed survey of the case law
relating to the power to grant pardon/remission and its judicial review,
found that in the present case, the power was exercised only on the
perceived public opinion that was clearly impermissible. However, as
observed hereinbefore, this aspect of the matter needs no further dilation
herein.
6. Assailing the judgment and order aforesaid, affirming their
conviction and upholding the sentence as awarded, the appellants have
preferred the present appeals.
6.1. Learned counsel for the appellant Manjit Singh has strenuously
argued that so far this appellant is concerned, it is amply established in
evidence that he was not present at the scene of the incident in question;
and has particularly referred to the statement of DW-9 to submit that on
the date of incident, the appellant Manjit Singh was present before the
said witness at 11.30 a.m. at village Dhaner, that was about 25 kms from
the Barnala Court Complex and hence, his presence at the scene of
crime at 11.15 a.m. is totally ruled out. Learned counsel has contended
that the Trial Court as also the High Court have rejected the plea of alibi
without assigning cogent reasons and the same has resulted in serious
miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel has argued that the High
Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there existed previous enmity
between the family of the deceased and the appellant herein because of
which, he has been implicated in the said case. In this regard, learned
counsel has particularly referred to the fact that PW-5 Rajinder Singh is
the brother of Jagraj, who was involved in the aforesaid rape and murder
case, that was keenly pursued by the appellant Manjit Singh. The learned
MANJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
counsel has yet further argued that there has not been any evidence as
regards common object of the accused persons; no independent witness
has been examined; and then, no weapon of offence was recovered at
the instance of the appellant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,
conviction of the appellant is not justified. The learned counsel has
referred to the decisions in Sikandar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar:
(2010) 7 SCC 477 and Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal: (2013)
4 SCC 607.
6.2. Learned counsel for appellant Sukhwinder Singh has submitted
that there are material contradictions in the medical evidence as also the
ocular version and in any case, the essential ingredients of Section 141
IPC, for formation of an unlawful assembly are not established and,
therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 with the aid
of Section 149 IPC is not justified. According to the learned counsel, the
only accusation against this appellant is that he had caused simple injury
on the little finger of the deceased Dalip Singh and had used the handle
of the kirpan to cause injury to PW-5 Rajinder Pal Singh and, on these
accusations, the case against this appellant cannot travel beyond the
offences of Sections 324 and 323 IPC for which, he has already
undergone imprisonment for a period of over 4 years and 10 months.
The learned counsel has referred to the decision in Govind Singh v.
State of Chattisgarh: (2019) 7 SCALE 20.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the
conviction of appellants with the submissions that the Trial Court and the
High Court have dealt with each and every argument raised by the
appellants and the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity
so as to call for interference. The learned counsel has submitted that the
appellant Manjit Singh not only caused injuries on the person of Rajinder
Pal Singh but, in fact, instigated the accused party with exhortation prior
to the assault and, in the face of clear evidence on record, mere want of
recovery of kirch used by the appellant Manjit Singh would not exonerate
him. The learned counsel has also contended that when the accused
persons, at least five of them, were armed with deadly weapons and
assaulted the injured persons simultaneously, all the necessary ingredients
of formation of an unlawful assembly with common object stand
established. As regards the plea of alibi, the learned counsel has submitted
that this plea was never suggested to the prosecution witnesses nor was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
taken in the statement under Section 313 CrPC; and the made up
witnesses produced in that regard have been duly considered and discarded
by the Trial Court and the High Court after thorough appreciation. The
learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a few decisions,
including that in Sahabuddin & Ors. v. State of Assam: (2012) 13
SCC 213.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that both these
appeals remain bereft of substance and no case for interference at the
instance of the appellants is made out.
Acquittal of two of the accused persons
9. Before taking up other aspects of the matter for consideration,
apposite it would be to take note of one of the relevant factors that
though in this case, the accused Prem Kumar and Narain Datt 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
while observing as under:-
"38.