Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Deadly Court Attack Case: Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 3rd September 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a group of individuals be held responsible for the actions of one of their members during a violent attack? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a deadly assault in a court complex. The court examined whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and were thus liable for the death and injuries caused during the incident. The two-judge bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari delivered the judgment, upholding the conviction of the accused.

Case Background

On March 3, 2001, Dalip Singh, Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-5), Gurnam Singh (PW-6), and Beant Singh, all residents of Village Mehal Kalan, went to the Barnala Court Complex for a hearing related to a previous criminal case. Simultaneously, the accused individuals, Manjit Singh, Labh Singh, Avtar Singh, Bakhtaur Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Prem Kumar, and Narain Datt, were also present at the same court complex for a hearing in a complaint case filed by Manjit Singh.

Around 11:15 a.m., when Dalip Singh and his companions were near the typists’ cabin in the court complex, they were attacked by the accused. It was alleged that Manjit Singh instigated the attack, and the other accused used weapons like kirpans and a ghop. Labh Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, and Avtar Singh were armed with kirpans, Bakhtaur Singh had a kirpan and a ghop, and Manjit Singh was armed with a kirch. Prem Kumar and Narain Datt were allegedly empty-handed.

The prosecution alleged that Labh Singh aimed a kirpan blow at Beant Singh, which hit his hand, while Sukhwinder Singh’s kirpan blow hit Dalip Singh’s hand. Bakhtaur Singh hit Dalip Singh on the head with a ghop. Prem Kumar and Narain Datt allegedly held Dalip Singh while Bakhtaur Singh hit him again. Avtar Singh injured Gurnam Singh’s leg with a kirpan, and Bakhtaur Singh inflicted multiple blows on Gurnam Singh. Manjit Singh injured Rajinder Pal Singh with a kirch. Sukhwinder Singh also hit Gurnam Singh with the handle of his kirpan.

Following the assault, the injured were taken to the hospital. Beant Singh’s statement was recorded, leading to the registration of FIR No. 56 of 2001. However, Dalip Singh, who was severely injured, passed away on March 12, 2001. Consequently, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was added to the FIR. During the investigation, weapons were recovered based on the disclosure statements of Bakhtaur Singh, Labh Singh, Avtar Singh, and Sukhwinder Singh.

Initially, Manjit Singh, Prem Kumar, and Narain Datt were not charged, but later, the Trial Court summoned them based on an application by Beant Singh under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The prosecution’s attempt to withdraw the case against them was rejected by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 141 IPC:

  “An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is… Third.- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence…” This section defines what constitutes an unlawful assembly, which is a group of five or more people with a common illegal objective.

• Section 148 IPC:

  This section deals with rioting, which is an offense involving violence and disturbance of public peace.

• Section 149 IPC:

  “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 committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” This section establishes the vicarious liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed by any member in furtherance of the common objective.

• Section 302 IPC:

  This section defines the punishment for murder.

• Section 323 IPC:

  This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

• Section 324 IPC:

  This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

• Section 326 IPC:

  This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The legal framework of this case is also supported by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 319, which allows the court to summon additional accused persons if evidence suggests their involvement during the trial.

Arguments

Appellant Manjit Singh’s Arguments:

• Manjit Singh argued that he was not present at the scene of the crime. He presented a witness (DW-9) who claimed he was with Manjit Singh at a village 25 kms away from the court complex at 11:30 am on the day of the incident.

• He contended that the Trial Court and High Court rejected his alibi without sufficient reasoning.

• Manjit Singh claimed he was falsely implicated due to previous enmity with the deceased’s family because he was pursuing a rape and murder case against their relatives.

• He argued that there was no evidence of a common object among the accused, no independent witness was examined, and no weapon was recovered from him.

• He cited Sikandar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar : (2010) 7 SCC 477 and Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal: (2013) 4 SCC 607 to support his arguments.

Appellant Sukhwinder Singh’s Arguments:

• Sukhwinder Singh argued that there were contradictions in the medical and eyewitness accounts.

• He claimed that the essential elements of Section 141 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly were not met, and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC was not justified.

• He argued that he only caused a simple injury to the deceased’s finger and used the handle of his kirpan to injure another person, which should not warrant a conviction beyond Sections 324 and 323 IPC.

• He cited Govind Singh v. State of Chattisgarh : (2019) 7 SCALE 20 to support his arguments.

Respondent (State of Punjab)’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Trial Court and High Court correctly analyzed all evidence and that the judgments did not require interference.

• The State contended that Manjit Singh not only caused injuries but also instigated the attack. The lack of weapon recovery from him was inconsequential given the clear evidence of his involvement.

• The State asserted that the presence of five armed individuals attacking the victims established the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object.

• The State argued that the alibi plea was not presented to prosecution witnesses, was not mentioned in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, and the defense witnesses were unreliable.

• The State relied upon Sahabuddin & Ors. v. State of Assam : (2012) 13 SCC 213 to support its arguments.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly.
2. Whether the appellants were liable for the death of Dalip Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellants.
4. Whether the plea of alibi of the appellant Manjit Singh was rightly rejected by the Trial Court and High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Authorities

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sikandar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar : (2010) 7 SCC 477: The court relied on this case to explain the essential ingredients of an unlawful assembly and the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.
• Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal: (2013) 4 SCC 607: The court used this case to summarize the principles related to unlawful assembly, common object, and the liability of its members.
• Masalti v. State of U.P.: AIR 1965 SC 202: The court cited this case to emphasize that the punishment under Section 149 IPC is vicarious and does not always require that each member of the unlawful assembly actually committed the offense.
• Yanob Sheikh alias Gagu v. State of West Bengal : (2013) 6 SCC 428: The court cited this case to highlight that the acquittal of some accused does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the other accused.
• Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana : (2008) 11 SCC 425: The court used this case to further support the principle that the acquittal of some accused does not mean that other accused must also be acquitted.
• Sahabuddin & Ors. v. State of Assam : (2012) 13 SCC 213: The court relied on this case to support the conviction of the appellants.
• Govind Singh v. State of Chattisgarh : (2019) 7 SCALE 20: The court distinguished this case from the present one, noting that it involved a sudden quarrel, unlike the premeditated attack in the present case.
• Section 141, Indian Penal Code: The court used this section to define the concept of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code: The court used this section to define the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: The court used this section to define the punishment for murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

The court emphasized the reliability of the eyewitness accounts provided by PW-5 Rajinder Pal Singh and PW-6 Gurnam Singh. Their testimonies were consistent with the initial FIR and corroborated by the medical evidence. The court found no reason to disbelieve their version of the events.

The court noted that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly, as defined under Section 141 of the IPC. The presence of five or more individuals armed with weapons, acting with a common objective to attack the complainant party, was a crucial factor. The court also highlighted that the attack was instigated by Manjit Singh, further establishing the common objective.

The court rejected Manjit Singh’s alibi plea, noting that it was not presented to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and was not mentioned in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The court also found the defense witnesses supporting the alibi to be unreliable.

The court held that the appellants were liable under Section 149 of the IPC, which establishes the vicarious liability of each member of an unlawful assembly. The court emphasized that each member is responsible for the actions of the assembly if the offense was committed in furtherance of the common object.

The court highlighted that the attack was premeditated and not a sudden quarrel. The use of weapons and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victims indicated a clear intention to cause harm.

The court also considered the medical evidence, which corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The injuries sustained by the victims, including the fatal head injury to Dalip Singh, were consistent with the prosecution’s version of the events.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly.

Issue 2: Whether the appellants were liable for the death of Dalip Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

Issue 3: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellants.

Issue 4: Whether the plea of alibi of the appellant Manjit Singh was rightly rejected by the Trial Court and High Court.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Manjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and were liable for the death of Dalip Singh. The court also upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no infirmity in its analysis of the evidence and application of the law.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case reinforces the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC. It clarifies that members of an unlawful assembly are responsible for the actions of the assembly if the offense was committed in furtherance of the common objective. This judgment serves as a reminder that individuals participating in an unlawful assembly can be held accountable for the consequences of their collective actions.

The judgment also emphasizes the importance of presenting alibi pleas properly during the trial. The court’s rejection of Manjit Singh’s alibi highlights the need to raise such defenses during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and to mention them in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. This ruling serves as a guide for future cases where alibi pleas are raised.

This case also underscores the significance of eyewitness testimony and its corroboration with medical evidence. The court’s reliance on the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6, along with the medical evidence, indicates that credible eyewitness accounts can be crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.