Summary
Two appellants challenged convictions arising from an armed group assault in a court complex that killed one person and injured others. The Court upheld the reliable injured-eyewitness accounts and rejected the unsupported alibi. The weapons, exhortation, coordinated attack and repeated targeted blows established an unlawful assembly and common object attracting Section 149. Acquittal of two differently situated co-accused did not undermine the remaining prosecution case.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness evidence and rejected alibi warranted interference with concurrent findings.
- Whether common object and constructive liability under Section 149 were established.
- Whether co-accused acquittals and non-recovery of one weapon weakened the convictions.
Provisions considered
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The established membership and shared object in the coordinated armed attack made the appellants liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object. (¶¶ 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6)
Held
- The consistent injured-eyewitness evidence was supported by medical findings. No rule required independent corroboration in every case, and the absence of recovery of Manjit Singh’s weapon did not defeat otherwise proved participation. (¶¶ 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 13, 13.2)
- The alibi was neither put to the material prosecution witnesses nor asserted in the appellant’s detailed Section 313 explanation. The late defence evidence was unsupported and unreliable on the facts, and the earlier police opinion did not displace the judicially tested evidence. (¶¶ 11.2, 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5)
- Benefit of doubt to two unarmed accused with uncertain roles did not require acquittal of the other five whose participation was independently established. Their cases were separable. (¶¶ 9, 9.1)
- Common object need not follow prior deliberation and may be inferred from weapons, conduct and surrounding circumstances, while mere bystanders must be excluded. Here exhortation, concerted assault and repeated vital-part attacks proved the shared object and resulting constructive liability. (¶¶ 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 15)
Result
Both appeals were dismissed. The appellants were directed to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks and serve the remaining portions of their respective sentences.