Summary
The Court partly reversed the acquittal of members of a group that fatally assaulted Dhanpal and injured the informant. Reliable testimony of a single eyewitness can sustain conviction; the corroboration approach in Masalti is not a mandatory witness-count rule for specifically attributed overt acts. Nevertheless, given the prior clash and the appeals against acquittal, the Court adopted an additional evidentiary safeguard on these facts, restoring six accused persons’ convictions and maintaining the remaining five acquittals.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly rejected the eyewitness evidence and acquitted eleven accused.
- Whether the corroboration approach in Masalti required multiple eyewitnesses where specific overt acts were attributed.
Provisions considered
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Common-object liability must be assessed from the evidence and surrounding circumstances; the Court distinguished mere presence in a large assembly from specifically attributed acts. (¶¶ 19, 20, 23)
- Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Evidence must be weighed rather than counted; a reliable single eyewitness can suffice for conviction. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Held
- The injured informant’s presence was unquestionable and his evidence was supported by other eyewitnesses. Even excluding PW6, the High Court’s rejection of the specific, consistent accounts was contrary to the record and its acquittal reasoning manifestly erroneous. (¶¶ 17, 20, 21, 22)
- Masalti concerned a precaution for identifying members of a large unlawful assembly where particular overt acts were not attributed. It does not impose a numerical corroboration requirement when reliable evidence specifically identifies an assailant’s acts. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 23)
- Because an earlier clash created a possibility of over-implication and these were appeals against acquittal, the Court prudentially required attribution by at least one eyewitness other than PWs 1, 27 and the excluded PW6, in addition to PWs 1 and 27. A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 met that safeguard; the remaining respondents received benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Trial convictions and sentences restored for Radhey Shyam alias Golu (A1), Jeetu alias Jeetmal (A6), Ghan Shyam alias Pintu (A7), Rajendra (A8), Sattu alias Satya Narain (A10) and Ranjeet (A13), with surrender within four weeks or custody thereafter. Acquittals of the other five respondents confirmed.