Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by three appellants who were convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC for the murder of Mohan Lal on 11 June 1984. The Trial Court convicted 11 accused, but the High Court acquitted 8 and maintained conviction of the three appellants under Section 302/149 IPC, holding that they formed an unlawful assembly with other unknown persons. The prosecution case was that the appellants, armed with guns and farsa, attacked the deceased while he was proceeding with his brother PW8; the mother PW9 witnessed the assault and named the three appellants. The Trial Court and High Court relied on the testimony of PW9, corroborated by PW8 and medical evidence PW10. In the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that PW9 was an interested witness and her testimony could not be relied upon because 10 co-accused were acquitted; that conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC was not sustainable since only three persons cannot form an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC; and that altering the conviction to Section 302/34 IPC without a specific charge would cause prejudice. The Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if wholly reliable; if partly reliable, corroboration is required. PW9's testimony regarding the roles of the appellants was cogent and consistent, corroborated by PW8 and medical evidence, and the names were disclosed in the promptly lodged FIR. The acquittal of other accused did not render her testimony wholly suspect because falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law in India. However, the Court agreed that the High Court erred in holding that the three appellants formed an unlawful assembly with unknown persons, as no such unknown persons were part of the prosecution case; therefore, conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC could not be sustained. The Court found that the evidence established common intention among the three appellants to commit murder, and relying on Willie Slaney v. State of M.P. and Dhanna v. State of M.P., held that it was permissible to alter the conviction to Section 302/34 IPC even without a specific charge under Section 34, as no prejudice was shown. Accordingly, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC, set aside the conviction under Section 148 IPC, maintained the sentence of life imprisonment, cancelled bail bonds, and directed that the appellants be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/149 - Conviction can be based on testimony of sole eyewitness if wholly reliable; when partly reliable, corroboration required; interested witness testimony can be accepted if corroborated by other evidence. The Court held that testimony of mother (PW9) was cogent and consistent regarding specific roles of three appellants, corroborated by brother PW8 and medical evidence PW10, and names were disclosed in promptly lodged FIR. Held that acquittal of 10 other accused did not render her testimony suspect as falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object and Constructive Liability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 141, 148, 149 - An unlawful assembly requires at least five persons; if only three accused are convicted and prosecution case does not allege any unknown persons sharing common object, conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC cannot be sustained. The Court held that High Court erred in holding that the three appellants formed unlawful assembly with 'other unknown persons' as no evidence supported such inference. (Paras 1-4) C) Criminal Law - Constructive Liability - Common Intention and Charge Alteration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 34, 114, 149 - Conviction can be altered from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC if common intention is established from evidence, even without a specific charge under Section 34, provided no prejudice is shown to the accused. The Court held that the three appellants specifically named and their joint assault established common intention; following Willie Slaney and Dhanna, alteration was permissible. Consequently, conviction altered and sentence of life imprisonment maintained. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction can be based on testimony of interested witness without corroboration; whether conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC can be sustained when only three accused remain; whether conviction can be altered to Section 302/34 IPC without specific charge under Section 34 when charge was under Section 149.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed except alteration of conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC; conviction under Section 148 IPC set aside; sentence of life imprisonment maintained; bail bonds cancelled; appellants to be taken into custody to undergo remaining sentence
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of eyewitness if wholly reliable
- corroboration required for partly reliable testimony
- interested witness testimony acceptable if corroborated
- falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not rule of law in India
- unlawful assembly requires minimum five persons
- conviction under Sections 148/149 IPC not sustainable when only three accused remain and no unknown persons
- conviction can be altered to Section 302/34 IPC without specific charge if common intention established and no prejudice shown
