Supreme Court of India
MANGA @ MAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 302
- Decided
- 3 May 2013
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
Section 141(3) "other offence" includes any offence punishable under the IPC, so the common‑object doctrine applies to the offences charged, and the procedural delays alleged do not invalidate the convictions.
Summary
The appellants, a group of fifteen men, were convicted for firing on the complainant's family, causing two deaths and multiple injuries, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They challenged the convictions on grounds of alleged delay in lodging the FIR and forwarding the express report to the magistrate, non‑recovery of bullets, lack of independent witnesses, alleged communal tension, and a narrow interpretation of the phrase "other offence" in Section 141(3). The Supreme Court held that the FIR was filed without unreasonable delay, the three‑day lapse in sending the report did not prejudice the accused, and the absence of recovered cartridges did not vitiate the prosecution’s case. It further ruled that "other offence" in Section 141(3) must be read broadly to include any offence punishable under the IPC, rejecting the appellant’s reliance on the ejusdem generis rule. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were upheld and the appeals dismissed.
Issues considered
- The proper interpretation of the phrase "other offence" in Section 141(3) of the IPC in relation to Section 149.
- Whether a delay in forwarding the express report to the magistrate under Section 157 CrPC vitiates the prosecution case.
- Whether the alleged delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a procedural defect.
- The impact of non‑recovery of bullets or pellets on the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution.
- The relevance of alleged communal tension to the liability of the accused.
- The adequacy of the testimony of related witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 157, s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 141, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 40
Subjects
Unlawful assemblyCommon object doctrineSection 141 IPCSection 149 IPCDelay in FIRExpress report delayFirearms evidenceCommunal tensionStatutory interpretationEjusdem generis
Judgment
(2013] 3 S.C.R. 175 ·
MANGA @ MAN SINGH A
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2008)
MAY 3, 2013
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
ss. 147, 148, 3021149 and 3071149 _, Group of 15
accused opened fire on complainant party causing death of
two and injuries to others-Conviction by trial court - Upheld
by High Court - Held: There is ample evidence to support
prosecution case that accused came with fire arms and 0
opened fire on complainant party - It is an undisputed fact
that two persons died of fire-arm injuries and all the injuries
suffered by others were also fire-arm injuries - In the
circumstances, non-detection of pellets or bullets will not be
of any consequence - Conviction and sentence imposed by E
courts below cannot be found fault with - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Investigation - Non-recovery of bullets/
pellets - Criminal law - Motive-,
•
s.141 read with ss.40, 144 and 149 -"Other offence"
occurring in Clause 'Third' of s.141 -- Connotation of - F
Held: A conspectus reading of s.40 makes it clear that for all
offences punishable tJnder /PC, the main clause of s.40 would
straight away apply in which event the expression "other
offence" used in s.141 'Third', will have to be construed as any
offence for which punishment is prescribed under /PC - The G
principle of ejusdem generis is not applicable - Interpretation
of statutes - Ejusdem generis.
175 H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
s.157-Three days' delay in sending express report to
Magistrate - Held: There was no delay in reporting the matter
to police - FIR was factually recorded without delay and
investigation started on the basis of FIR - In the
B circumstances, delay, in forwarding the report to Magistrate
does not in any way vitiate the case of prosecution - Besides,
no prejudice is shown to have been caused to accused.
EVIDENCE:
C Testimony of related witnesses - Non-examination of
independent witnesses - Discussed - Judicial notice.
The appellants were prosecuted for causing death of
two persons and injuries to others by gun shots. The
prosecution case was that there was bad blood between
D the accused-appellants in connection with the daughter
of A-1, and further with regard to payment of vehicle
charges. On the date of incident at about 8.30 A.M. when
PW-3, the brother of complainant (PW-2), went to his
fields, he was accosted by A-1 to A-4, but he escaped and
E returned back. By 10.00 A.M., the accused, 15 in number,
armed with guns and country-made pistols reached the
house of the complainant and opened fire in which one
person died on.the spot and others received serious gun-
shot injuries. One of them died the following day in the
F hospital. The trial court convicted the accused u/ss 147,
148, 3021149 and 307/149 and sentenced them to
imprisonment for life u/s 302/149 and 7 years RI u/s 307/
149. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the
sentences.
G In the instant appeals, it was contended for the
appellants, inter alia, that there was delay in filing the FIR
and long delay in forwarding the express report to the
Magistrate, which vitiated the prosecution case; that there
was a communal tension prevailing in the area and in the
H milieu, the victims received injuries, therefore, the
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 177
appellants could not be held responsible for the same A
merely because they possessed licenced fire-arms. It
was also contended that the principle of common object
could not be applied to the nature of offences punishable
u/ss 302, 307 read with s.149 as well as ss. 147 and .148
IPC and since the expression "other offence" u/s 141, B
'Third' has been used along with the offences of mischief
or criminal trespass, it can only relate to similar such
offences of the same species and not commission of all
other offences, as in the case on hand. On behalf of
appellant no. 1 in Crl. A. No. 1.165 of 2008, it was c
contended that he. was the resident of a different village
and was falsely implicated.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. With regard to delay in filing the FIR, in D
fact going by the version of PWs-2 and 3 supported by
PWs-1 and 4, the occurrence took place at 10 a.m. in the
morning. The matter was reported by PW-2 to the police
by 11.45 a.m. and it has come in the evidence that the
distance between the place of occurrence and the police E
station was 12 Kms. There was nothing brought out on
the defence to contradict the said statement made by the
prosecution witnesses. It was also stated that PW-2 had
to reach the police station only through a bullock cart. In
such circumstances, the lodging of the FIR by 11.45 a.m., F
cannot be held to be highly delayed. Besides, where
more than ten persons suffered injuries and one person
died on the spot,. it is quite possible that every member
of the injured party would have taken the immediate
required time to attend to the injured, by moving them to G
the hospital. Therefore, it can never be said that there was
any delay at all in reporting the matter to the police, or in
registering the FIR. [para 26) [197-C-H]
1.2. As regards the express report being forwarded
to Magistrate on 24.11.2001, in the first place, it is not H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
· A shown as to how such a delay caused any prejudice to
the accused. The trial· court has noted that the
investigating officer was not questioned at all about the
reasons for not sending the report prior to 24.11.2001. It
has further noted that in the 'Panchnama' of deceased
B 'M', the crime number was clearly mentioned along with
the relevant sequence. The trial court has, therefore,
found that without recording the FIR on the date of
incident, namely, 21.11.2001, crime number could not
have been mentioned in the 'Panchnama'. The FIR was
c factually recorded without delay on the basis whereof the
investigation started; and in the absence of any other
infirmity in that respect, the delay in forwarding the report
to the Magistrate does not in any way vitiate the case of
the prosecution. [para 16, 17 and 20] [190-C-F-H; 191-A;
D 194-B]
Jang Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan, 2000
(3) SCR 970 = 2001 (9) SCC 704; held inapplicable.
Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (5) SCR 952 =
E 2012 (6) SCC 107; Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajansingh and Ors.
v. State of Haryana, 2011 (7) SCR 1 = (2011) 7 SCC 421;
Shiv/al & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2011 (11)
SCR 429 =AIR 2012 SC 280; relied on.
1.3. With regard to plea of communal tension, except
F making the bald suggestion, which was rightly denied,
there was nothing brought out either in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses or placed by way of defence
evidence before the court, as to what was the nature of
communal tension, who were all communally and
G inimically disposed of and when did such communal
friction occur. In fact, all what was stated in s. 313
statement, was 'false implication' due to enmity and
political reasons. It was not even suggested to any of the
witnesses that there was communal hatred as between
H those witnesses examined in support of the prosecution
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 179
or that it was due to such communal tension they A
suffered such injuries, as well as casualties in their family.
[para 23] [195-B-D, F-G]
1.4. Though PWs-1 to 4 were closely related to the
deceased, they also suffered fire-arm injuries at the hands B
of the appellants and the injuries sustained by them were
duly supported by medical evidence - both
documentary as well as oral - through PWs-5, 6, 7 and
8. There was nothing pointed out in the evidence of PWs-
1 to 4 to discredit their version. The High Court has rightly C
held that having regard to the nature of evidence
tendered by them, there were no good grounds to discard
their version. [para 24 and 27] [196-B-D; 198-B]
1.5. As regards non-examination of independent
witness, the High Court has found that though the injured D
witnesses were related to each other, their evidence was
natural and there was nothing to find fault with their
version. It has further held rightly, that it is the quality of
the witness and not the quantity that matters. It has also
taken judicial notice of the fact tha( the public are reluctant E
to appear and depose before the court, especially in
criminal cases because of many .obvious reasons.
[para 27] [198-A-C] ·
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain 1990 (1) SCR 115 = 1990 (1): SCC 550; State of U.P. F
v. Pappu 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 585 = 2005 (3) SCC 594;
State of Punjab v. Gunnit Singh 1996 (1) SCR 532 =1996
(2) SCC 384; State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra 2002 (3) SCR
173 = 2002 (9) SCC 86; State of'H.P. v. Raghubir Singh
1993 (2) SCR 17 = 1993 (2) SCC 622; Wahid Khan v. State G
of M.P. 2009 (15) SCR 1207 = 2010 (2) SCC 9; Rameshwar
v. State of Rajasthan 1952 SCR 377 = AIR 1952 SC 54 •
referred to.
'
1.6. As regards failure to recoyer empty cartridges or H
'
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A bullets from the scene of occurrence, suffice it to state
that when there was enough evidence to support the
version of the prosecution that some of the appellants
were in possession of licenced arms and others were
holding unlicenced pistols and the shooting with those
8 arms was sufficiently established by the version of the
injured eye-witnesses, non-detection of pellets or bullets
will not be of any consequence as a vitiating factor to
defeat the case of the prosecution. It is an undisputed
fact that two persons died of fire-arm injuries and all the
c injuries suffered by others were also firm-arm injuries.
[para 28) [198-0-G]
1.7. With regard to gathering of a number of accused
within a short span of time, it may be noted that a one ·
hour gap in a village was more than sufficient to gather
D any number of persons, especially when the purpose of
such gathering was to cause a physical attack on a weak
and unarmed party. It is relevant to note that while thirteen
persons were seriously injured, of whom two succumbed
to injuries, not even a scratch was reported against any
E of the appellants. There was not even a suggestion that
any of the injured party was in possession of any
weapon, like even a stick or a 'lathi'. [para 29) [199-B-D]
1.8. It will be relevant to take note of the motive,
F which was not seriously disputed on behalf of the
appellants. [para 30) [199-E]
1.9. As far as plea of appellant no. 1 in Crl. A. No. 1165
of 2008 that he was a resident of a different village and
was falsely implicated, the evidence of PW-1 disclosed
G that the father-in-law of the said appellant is the resident
of the village and since he had no male child, the
appellant was living along with him. In the family register
of the year 1999 as well as the copy of the electoral list,
the name of the appellant was clearly mentioned. [para
H 32) [200-C, F-G] '
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 181
2.1. As regards the interpretation to be given to the A
expression 'other offence' in s. 141, 'Third', a literal
interpretation of the same only means that apart from the
offences of mischief and. criminal trespass, all other
offences would fall within the said clause 'Third'.
Reading s.141 'Third' along with s.149, ifthe commission B
of any other offence apart from mischief or criminal
trespass was by a member of an unlawful assembly, the
prescription of common object will automatically get
satisfied. [para 33 and 38) [201-B; 206-C-E]
Surjit Singh Katra v. Union of India and Another 1991
c
(1) SCR 364 =1991 (2) SCC 87; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam
Ltd. v. Essar Power'Ltd. 2008 (4 ) SCR 822 = 2008 (4) SCC
755 - referred to
2.2. If, in te.rms of s.144 IPC mere possession of a D.
deadly weapon by a member of an unlawful assembly,
which is likely to cause death would attract s.141'Third',
as a corollary, it will have to be held that the expression
'or other offence' mentioned in s.141 should without
doing any violence to the said provision, include all other E
offences apart from the offence of mischief or criminal
trespass. Similar will be the interpretation that can be
made relating to the offence of rioting prescribed u/s 146
punishable u/s 147 as well as s.148, namely, rioting,
armed with deadly weapons. [para 38) [206-F-H; 207-A] F
2.3. It cannot be said that because the offences
mischief or criminal trespass are used preceding the
expression "other offence" in s.141 'Third', it should be
taken that such offence would only relate to a minor
offence of mischief or trespass and that the expression G
"other offence" should be restricted only to that extent.
The offence of mischief and trespass cc\>uld also be as
grave as that of an offence of murder,\ for which the
punishment of life imprisonment can l!>e imposed as
H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A provided for u/ss 438, 449, 450 etc. Therefore, this Court
holds that the principle of 'ejusdem generis' cannot be
Imported to s.141 'Third'. [para 42) [208-A-C]
2.4. Further, going by the main clause of s.40, the
word "offence" since denotes the thing made punishable
8
under the IPC, 'other offence' mentioned in s.141 'Third',
can only denote to offences, which are punishable under
any of the provisions of IPC. Therefore, by applying the
main clause of s.40, It can be straight away held that all
offences referred to In any of the provisions of the IPC
C for which the punishment is provided for, would
automatically fall within the expression "other offence",
which has been used in s.141 'Third'; and, this Court Is
of the firm view that only such a construction would be
In tune with the purport and intent of the law makers
D while defining an unlawful assembly for commission of
an offence with a common object, as specified u/s 141 of
the Code. In the case on hand, since no special law or
local law was attracted and the accused were charged
only for with offences under the Penal Code, main clause
E of s.40 gets attracted along with s.141 'third' IPC. Having
regard to such a construction of s.141, read along with
s.40 IPC, the offences found proved by the courts below
against the appellants, falling u/s 302/149, and 307/149
along with ss.147 and 148 IPC and the conviction and
F sentences imposed, cannot be found fault with. [para 43
and 46) [208-D-G; 210-A-C]
Case Law Reference:
2000 (3) SCR 970 held Inapplicable para 11
G
2012 (5) SCR 952 relied on para 19
2011 (7) SCR 1 relied on para 19
2011 (11) SCR429 relied on para 19
H
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 183
1990 (1) SCR 115 referred to para 25 A
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 585 referred to para 25
1993 '(2) SCR 17 referred to para 25
2002 (3) SCR 173 referred to para 25.
B
1996 (1) SCR 532 referred to para 25
2009 (15) SCR 1207 referred to para 25
1952 SCR 377 referred to para 25
c
1991 (1) SCR 364 referred to Para 34
2008 (4) SCR 822 referred to Para 35
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
1
Nos. 1156 of 2008. D
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.06.2007 of the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainitial in Criminal Appeal No. 21 ,~f
2005.
WITH E
Crl. A.Nos. 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 11&.4,
1165 & 1166 of 2008.
S.R. Singh, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sushant K. Yadav,
Ujjawal Pandey, Sudeep Kumar, Asha Gopalan Nair, Atul F
Kumar, S.K. Verma, Rohit Minocha (A.C.), D.K. Pradhan,
Abhay Kumar, Mrinal Bharti, U.P. Singh, Abhishek Atrey,
Tanmay Aggarwal, Babita Tyagi, Yunus Malik Harendra Singh,
Samir Malik for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. In
these appeals the challenge is to the common judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A dated 14.6.2007 in Criminal Appeal Nos.17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25 and 95 of 2005. The High Court by the impugned
judgment confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded by
the trial Court in its judgment and order dated 01.2.2005, in
Sessions Case No.156/2002 State v. Soma and Others. The
B appellants were all convicted for offences under Section 302,
307 read with Section 149 and Sections 147 & 148 of Indian
Penal Code (IPC). Each of the accused was awarded the
punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under
Sections 302/149 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment
c and fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 307/149 IPC and one
year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine under Section
148 IPC and six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/-
fine under Section 147 IPC. All the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
D 2. Criminal Misc. Petition No.22687 of 2011 in Criminal
Appeal No.1160 of 2008 filed by the de facto complainant is
allowed. Applicant is impleaded as party-respondent.
3. The genesis of the case was that the complainant Sajjad
E @ Kala PW-2 was the resident of village Dadoobas, within the
jurisdiction of Bhagwanpur po~ce station, district Haridwar. On
21.11.2001 his brother Ayyub (PW-3) went to his field situated
near the river. He was accosted by A1 to A-4 Soma, Chander,
Pyara and Radha and fearing assault at their hands Ayyub
F (PW-3) escaped and rushed back to the residence and
reported the matter to PW-2. PW-3 stated to have gone to his
field by around 8.30 to 8.45 a.m. and retuned back by 9 to 9.15
a.m. By 10 a.m. the accused, 15 in number, armed with guns
and country made pistols approached the house of the
G complainant, where all other family members were also present.
The accused party stated to have abused the complainant and
the family members and that while the complainant and his
family members were attempting to pacify the accused party,
without heeding to any of their advice, accused party opened
fire in which Mehroof s/o Nazir, on sustaining gun shot injuries
H
· MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 185
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
in his chest, succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. A
That lqurar Ali, another person was seriously injured and 10
others were also injured in the firing assault at the· instance of
the appellants. They were all shifted to Roorkee hospital for
treatment. The body of the deceased Mehroof, was lying atthe
place of occurrence. PW-2 stated to have lodged written B
complaint Ka-1 in the police station at about 11.45 a.m. on the
' same date, whereafter a case was registered against all the
accused persons. · lqurar Ali, the other seriously injured person,
died on 24.11.2001 at about4.30 a.m. Thereafter; PW-2 gave
c·
a further report Ka-2 to the police station Bhagwanpur. The post-
mortem was conducted on the bodies of Mehroof and lqurar
Ali. The investigating officer, in furtherance of the investigation,
recovered the guns, prepared the site plan, recorded the
statement of witnesses and on conclusion of the investigation,
submitted the charge-sheet before the Court. According to PW- D
2, two years prior to the incident in connection with Soma's (A-
1) daughter, there was a gunshot firing by the appellants
Bijendra (A-5) and Tirath (A-15) respectively, which was.
however, compromised outside the Court. He further informed
that a 'ma1peet'took place between Pyara (A-3) s/o Soma and E .
one Liyakat s/o Nuruddin four days prior to the date of incident
with regard to payment of Metador (vehicle} charges and that .
two days thereafter, exchange of hot words took place between
them.
4. It was in the above stated background that the offence · F
was alleged to have been committed by the appellants. The
prosecution examined PWs-1to13 of whom, PWs-1to4 were
injured eye-witnesses, namely, Gayyur, Sallad @.Kala, Ayyub
and Ashraf. PW-5 is Dr. S.S. Lal, wh.o conducted the post-
mortem on the body of Mehroof. PW-6 is Dr. D.D. Lumba, who . G
attended on the injured persons numbering ten. PW-7 is Dr. Ajay
Aggarwal, who attended on the injured eye-witnesses PWs~.1
and 2. PW-8 is Dr. R.K. Pandey, who conducted the post-
mortem on the body of lqurar AIL PW-9 is Dr. Yogesh Kumar,
radiologist, who proved X-ray reports of seven of the injured H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A witnesses. PW-10, Sub Inspector, R.K. Awasthi is the
investigating officer.
5. In the questioning under Section 313 C.r.P.C., all the
accused took the plea of 'false implication' and that they have
been implicated due to enmity, as well as for political reasons.
8
The injuries on the body of Mehroof as stated in the post-
mortem report were as under:
"(1) Fire arm would of entry 1 cm x 1 cm rounded in front
of left side of chest. 4 cm away from left nipple at 1O O'
C Clock position, margins inverted, blackening & tattooing
present."
6. According to PW-5, Dr. S.S. Lal, Medical officer, the
death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from
0 the ante-mortem firearm injuries sustained by the deceased.
7.Thus, the death was one of homicidal and was proved
beyond doubt. The injuries on the body of lqurar Ali, as per PW-
6 the doctor, who attended on him immediately after he was
shifted to Roorkee Civil Hospital were as under:
E
"(1) Lacerated would 1cm x 0.5 cm x through and through
left pinna back middle part. No blackening scorching and
tattooing seen around the wound.
(2) Lacerated would 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep tragus
F
of left ear. No blackening, scorching and tattooing seen
around the wound.
(3) Lacerated would 1.6 cm x 1.0 cm x depth not probed
middle of chin lower part. No blackening, scorching and
G tattooing seen around the wound. Adv. X-ray and fresh in
duration."
8. Considering the precarious condition of the injured
lqurar Ali, he was referred to a higher medical centre for
H treatment on 21.11.2001at12:10 p.m. He was taken to PGI
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 187
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Hospital, Chandigarh from where he was referred to AllMS, A
New Delhi. However, considering the health of lqurar Ali, he
was allowed to be taken back to his house. He succumbed to
his injuries on 24.11.2001. PW-8 who conducted the post-
mortem on the body of lqurar Ali, noted the following ante-
mortem injuries: B
"(1) Fire arm wound of entry O.S cm x 0.08 cm below in
middle part of chin. Margins are incised. No blackening
and tattooing seen around the wound, on explanation.
Bullet traversed through brain substance, strike at occipital C
bone. There is fracture of occipital bone rebound through
brain substance back of neck and recovered from space
between CS & C6 from muscle, fracture of CS cervical
vertebra.
(ii) Abrasion 1.S cm x 1 cm on the left pinna of tragus." D
9. According to PW-8, the death of lqurar Ali was due to
hemorrhage and coma resulting from the ante-mortem fire-arm
injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, it was
established that the death of lqurar Ali was also a homicidal E
death on account of fire-arm injuries sustained by him. PW-6
also examined other injured persons including PW-1 Gayyur,
PW-3 Ayyub and PW-4 Ashraf and seven others. According to
the report, injuries were all due to fire-arms.
10. In all these appeals, the main submissions were made F
by Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants,
in Criminal Appeal Nos.11S7/2008, 11S8/2008, 1161/2008 and
1164/2008 and by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma counsel for the
appellant in 11S6/2008. The other learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1166, 11 S9 and 11 SS G
of 2008 adopted the submissions of the above counsel. On
behalf of the State, Dr. Abhishek Attrey addressed arguments.
Mr. Yunus Malik appeared and made submissions on behalf
of the de facto complainant, who was impleaded pursuant to
H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A the orders passed in Crl.M.P. 22687/2011 in Crl.A.1160 of
2008.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, the
sum and substance of the submission of learned counsel was
that there was delay in lodging of the FIR, that there were serious
8
lacunae in the case of the prosecution framed against the
appellants in that the evidence did not establish the offence
alleged against the appellants, that there was long delay in
sending express report to the Magistrate and thereby, violation
of Section 157 Cr.P.C. was committed and consequently, the
C conviction could not have been ordered. According to learned
counsel, when PW-3 Ayyub was alleged to have been accosted
around 8.30 to 8.45 a.m. by four persons in the field, it was hard
to believe that within a matter of about an hour, :there could have
been formation of an unlawful assembly by as many as 15
D persons with fire-arm weapons, both licenced and country-
made, to cause such gruesome and murderous attacks on the
deceased and. other injured persons, in order to invoke
Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, along with
Sections 147 & 148 IPC. It was contended that if at all the
E offence of common object can be attributed to the appellants,
it could have been only under Section 141 'third', which cannot
be applied to the nature of offences alleged against the
persons, namely, Sections 302, 307 read with 149, as well as
147 & 148 IPC. As far as the first appellant in Cri. Appeal
F No.1165/2008 was concerned, it was contended that he was
totally alien to the village where the occurrence took place as
he belonged to a different village and that he had been falsely
roped in. It was also contended that there was a communal
tension in the village as admitted by PW-13 and that under
G political pressure the police implicated all the persons in the
village who were holding licenced arms. Reliance was placed
on Jang Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan - 2001 (9)
SCC 704 in support of the submission of Section 157 Cr.P.C.
12. As against the above submissions, learned counsel for
H
MANGA @ MA,N SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 189
•. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
the State argued that non-recovery of bullets or pellets or not A
sending the guns for ballistic expert report by itself may not
vitiate the case of the prosecution, when there was direct
. evidence relating to the occurrence and injuries inflicted by the
appellants on the deceased and other injured persons.
8
13. Learned counsel contended that when after PW-3 was
accosted between 8.30 and 8.45 a.m. and who escaped from
the onslaught of the appellants in the field, the appellants had
more than an hour, inasmuch as they reached the place of
occurrence only by 10 a.m. and, therefore, they had enough
time to gather other assailants and indulge in the gruesome C
act. As far as the scope of Section 149 was concerned,
learned counsel contended that the said submission was
satisfactorily met in the judgments of the Court below and the
same does not merit any consideration. Learned counsel for
PW-2 also adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for D
the State.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and having perused the material papers placed before
us including the judgment of the High Court as well as that of E :
the trial Court, we find that the following relevant questions
require to be addressed, namely:
(1) What is the interpretation to be placed on Section
141 'third' vis-a-vis Section 14.9 IPC,
F
2) Whether the so-called delay in forwarding express
report to the Magistrate after three days from the
date of occurrence, namely, on 24.11.2001 would
vitiate the case of the prosecution. ·
G
(3) Whether the prevalence of communal riots at the
time of occurrence merits acceptaoce in order to
extricate the appellants from the conviction
imposed.
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A (4) Whether there was any lacunae in the case of the
prosecution based on various points raised on
behalf of the appellants.
15. We wish to deal with the first question in the last.
B 16. As far as the second question is concerned, it is based
on the factum of the time taken in forwarding the express report
to the Magistrate. Since in Exhibit Ka-47 namely, the First
Information Report, the concerned Court put the date
24.11.2001 after the expression 'seen' and there being no
C other endorsement prior or subsequent to 21.11.2001
mentioning any other date, there is no doubt that the express
report was forwarded to the Magistrate only on 24.11.2001. The
question, therefore, for consideration is whether that by itself
would vitiate the whole case of the prosecution. The submission
D is that since there was such a wide time gap as between the
alleged date of occurrence, namely, 21.11.2001 and the
forwarding of the report to the Magistrate on 24.11.2001, there
was every chance of antedating the FIR. In support of the said
submission based on Section 157 of Cr.P.C., reliance was
E placed upon the decision reported in Jang Singh (supra). In
the first blush, though the said submission appears to be very
sound, on a detailed analysis, we find that it is without any
substance for more than one reason.
17. In the first place, it is not shown as to how such a delay
F caused any prejudice to the accused. Except merely stating that
the three days delay in forwarding the express report belies the
case of the prosecution as alleged, nothing else was shown in
support of the said submission. In fact the trial Court dealt with
this very submission. The trial Court has noted that the ·
G investigating officer was not questioned at all about the reasons
for not sending the report prior to 24.11.2001. It has further
noted that in fhe 'Panchnama' of the deceased Mehroof, the
crime was clearly mentioned along with the relevant sequence
of crime. The trial Court has therefore, found that without
H recording the First Information Report on that very day, namely,
MANGA@MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 191
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
21.11.2001, the crime number could not have been mentioned A
·in the 'Panchnama'. ·
18. In this context, when we refer to the decision relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, namely, Jang
Singh (supra), we find that this Court has noted the vitiating B
factors in the entire case of the prosecution, including the delay
in sending the First Information Report to the Magistrate for
which there was no explanation. By merely referring to the said
factor along with the other serious defects noted by this Court,
it was concluded that the case of the prosecution was not made C
out. We, therefore, do not find any scope to apply the said
decision as a proposition of law in order to apply the same to
the case on hand.
19. Per Contra, it will be appropriate to refer to a reasoned
decision of this Court reported in Sandeep v. State of Uttar D
Pradesh - 2012. (6) SCC 107, wherein this very Bench dealt
with the implication of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and held as under
1
in paragraphs 62 and 63:
"62. It was also feebly contended on behalf of the E
appellants that the express report was not forwarded to.the
Magistrate as stipulated under Section 157 Cr.P.C.
instantaneously. According to the learned counsel FIR
which was initially registered on 17-11-2004 was given a ·
number on 19-11-2004 as FIR No. 116 of 2004 and it was
altered on 20-11-2004 and was forwarded only on 25-11- F
2004 to the Magistrate. As far as the said contention is
concerned, we only wish to refer to the reported decision
of this Court in Pala Singh v. State of Punjab wherein this
Court has clearly held that (SCC p. 645, para 8) where the
FIR was actually recorded without delay and the G_
investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is
no other infirmity brought to the notice of the court then,
however improper or objectionable the delay in receipt of
the report 'oy the Magistrate concerned be, in the absence
of any prejudice to the accused it cannot by itself justify the H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the
prosecution insupportable.
63. Applying the above ratio in Pala Singh to the case on
hand, while pointing out the delay in the forwarding of the
FIR to the Magistrate, no prejudice was said to have been
B
caused to the appellants by virtue of the said delay. As far
as the commencement of the investigation is concerned,
our earlier detailed discussion discloses that there was no
dearth in that aspect. In such circumstances we do not find
any infirmity in the case of the prosecution on that score.
c In fact the above decision was subsequently followed in
/shwar Singh v. State of U.P. and Subash Chander v.
Krishan Lar
We can also refer to a recent decision of this Court in
D Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajansingh and Ors. v. State of Haryana
- (2011) 7 sec 421. Relevant paras 29 and 31 are as under:
"29. It is not that as if every delay in sending the report to
the Magistrate would necessarily lead to the inference that
the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or has been
E
ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation is not fair and .
forthright. Every such delay is not fatal unless prejudice to
the accused is shown. The expression ~forthwith"
mentioned therein does not mean that the prosecution is
required to explain delay of every hour in sending the FIR
F to the Magistrate. In a given case, if number of dead and
injured persons is very high, delay in dispatching the report
is natural. Of course, the same is to be sent within
reasonable time in the prevalent circumstances.
G 31. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the High
Court that there was no delay either in lodging the FIR or
in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate. It may be
pertinent to point out that the defence did not put any
question on these issues while cross-examining the
H investigating officer, providing him an .opportunity to
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 193
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)
explain the delay, if any. Thus, we do not find any force in A
the submissions ma,de by the learned counsel for the
appellants in this regard."
Again in Shiv/al & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh- AIR
2012 SC 280, the significance and relevance relating to 8
sending a copy of FIR to the lllaqa Magistrate has been
explained as under in paragraph 9:
"9 ......... the Magistrate must be immediately informed of
every serious offence so that he may be in a position to
act under Section 159, Cr.P.C., if so required. The object C
of the statutory provision is to keep the Magistrate
informed of the investigation so as to enable him to control
investigation and, if necessary, to give appropriate
direction. However, it is not that as if every delay in
sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead D
to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the
time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or
investigation is not fair and forthright. In a given case there
may' be an explanation for delay. An unexplained
inordinate delay in sending the copy of the FIR to lllaka E
Magistrate may affect the prosecution case adversely.
However, such an adverse inference may be drawn on the
basis of attending circumstances involved in a case."
In the case on hand nothing was put to PW-13 ·
(Investigating Officer) as regards the alleged delay in sending . F
the FIR to the Magistrate and or to any prejudice was caused
to the appellants on that account. It would have enabled the
Investigating Officer to explain the reason for the delay. In any
event nothing has been shown as to any prejudice caused, to
the appellants on the ground of alleged delay in sending; a copy G
of FIR to the Magistrate.
I
20. When we apply the above principle laid down in the
said decision for the reasons to be adduced for the other
questions to be dealt with in this judgment, we hold that there H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A was no dearth in the process of investigation based on the
factum of the alleged occurrence on 21.11.2001, as reported
by the complainant PW-2 and the mere delay in forwarding of
the express report to the Magistrate has not caused any dent
in the case of the prosecution. In other words, we have no
B difficulty in stating that the FIR was factually recorded without
delay and the investigation started on the basis of the FIR and
in the absence of any other infirmity in that respect, the delay
in forwarding the report to the Magistrate does not in any way
vitiate the case of the prosecution.
c 21. With this we come to the next question. The submission
on behalf of the appellants was that there was communal
tension prevailing and, therefore, if in that milieu, someone was
injured, those who were possessing licenced arms in the village
cannot be held responsible, even if it resulted in the death of
D two individuals and injuries to several other persons. In support
of the said contention, reference was made to the deposition
of PW-13, the Investigating Officer. To a stray question put to
him, PW-13 answered that;
E "there had been gross tension present in the said vlllage
which had been communal in nature and scope thereof. I
had neither recorded the time of commencement of any
proceeding, in the said village nor, had I recorded
culmination thereof, in the contents of leaflet No.1 of my
F Case Diary nor further, had I copied down the contents of
the Inquest-Report [Panchaytnama], in the contents
thereof."
22. Reference was also made to a suggestion made to
..J. the said witness, which was denied and the statement was to
~ the following effect:
"It is also wrong and incorrect, to accordingly allege and
consequently suggest, to the effect that, on account of the
then prevailing communal tension, in the said village,
H subsequently in consultation of all licensed weapon-holders
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 195
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
of the community of accused of the said village, the A
present accused, as a matter of fact, had since been
implicated, in a belied manner, on account of undue
pressure, in the present matter. However, this fact remains
true and correct, to the effect that, except the licensed arm-
holders belonging, to the community of accused, there was B
no other licensed arm-holder or, any other member, from
their community present, at the said spot of occurrence."
23. Except· making the said bald suggestion, which was
rightly denied, there was nothing brought out or placed either C
in the evidence of the prosecution witness or by way of defence
evidence before the court, as to what was the nature of
communal tension, who were all communally and inimically
disposed of and when such communal friction occurred. In fact,
what all was stated in the Section 313 statement, was 'false
implication' due to enmity and political reasons. Political D
difference and communal difference are two different factors
and, therefore, it is not known why such a specific stand of
communal tension was not taken in the Section 313
questioning. If really there was any communal tension in the
village, there would have been any number of witnesses who E
wo.µld have come forward and stated the same before the
Court, as none would have been prejudiced nor affected by
making such a true statement before the Court. When we
consider the oral evidence of PW-13, namely, that there had
been gross tension present in the village, as there was nothing F
recorded in the police station, it will be a dangerous proposition
if simply based on the said isolated statement, one were to
conclude that the present occurrence and its aftermath were
solely due to communal tension. It was not even suggested to
any of the witnesses that there was communal hatred as G
between those witnesses examined in support of the
prosecution or that it was due to such communal tension they
suffered such injuries, as well as casualties in their family. In
fact, we are of the view that there are too many incongruities
in the said submission, inasmuch as the said submission is H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20131 3 S.C.R..
A made in desperation and does not deserve any consideration.
Therefore, the said submission is also liable to be rejected as
meritless.
24. With this, we come to the last of the questions as to
B whether there were any lacunae in the case of the prosecution
based on the submissions of the learned counsel. Before
dealing with the submissions, we wish to note that though
PWs-1 to 4 were closely related to the deceased, they also
suffered fire-arm injuries at the hands of the appellants and the
C injuries sustained by them were duly supported by medical
evidence, both documentary as well as oral, namely, through
PWs-6, 7, 8 and 9. There was nothing pointed out in the
evidence of the above witnesses, namely, PWs-1 to 4, except
stating that since because they were closely related, their
version about the occurrence was not true in order to discredit
D their version. Even before the Courts below the only argument
made was that the said witnesses were related to the
deceased and that they falsely implicated the appellants. In our
considered opinion, merely based on such a flimsy submission
as regards the credibility of those witnesses, the evidence of
E those injured eye witnesses cannot be discarded.
25. In fact with regard to the reliance to be placed upon
the injured witnesses, this Court has held in very many
decisions as to the due credence to be given. The following
F decisions can be referred to for that purpose:-
(1) State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain -1990 (1) SCC 550
(2) State of U.P. v. Pappu - 2005 (3) SCC 594
G
'(3) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh - 1996 (2) SCC
384
(4) State of Orissa v. Thakara Basra - 2002 (9) SCC
86
H
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 197
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
(5) State .of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh - 1993 (2) SCC A
622
(6) Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. ·- 2010 (2) SCC 9
(7) Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan -AIR 1952 SC B
54
Applying the principles laid down in those decisions, we
hold that on this ground there is no scope to interfere with the
orders impugned in these appeals.
26. It was thus contended that there was delay in filing the
c
. FIR. In fact going by the version of PWs-2 and 3 supported by
PWs-1 and 4, the occurrence took place at 10 a.m. in the
morning. The matter was reported by PW-2 to the police by
11.45 a.m. and it has come in the evidence that the distance
0
between the place of occurrence and the police station was 12
Kms. There was nothing brought out on the defence to
contradict the said statement made by the prosecution
witnesses. It was also stated that PW-2 had to reach the police
station only through a bullock cart. In such circumstances, the
lodging of the FIR by 11.45 a.m., cannot be held to be highly E ·
delayed. When it is stated that the occurrence took place at 10
a.m., where more than ten persons suffered injuries and one
person died on the spot and while another person died after .
three days, it is quite possible that every member of the injured
party would have taken the immediate required time to attend F
to the injured, by moving them to the hospital and arranging the
required transport for them, while also taking stock of the
situation in order to proceed further for lodging the complaint
with the police. That by itself would have taken not less than
an hour for them and only thereafter, a decision might have G
been taken by PW-2 to go to the police station for lodging the
FIR. Therefore, it can never be held that there was any delay
at all in reporting the matter to the police, nor in registering the
FIR.
H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A 27. It was contended that according to the prosecution
when the accused party attacked the injured party apart from
the family members of the injured party, local villagers were also
present but yet, none was examined by way of independent
witness. The said submission has been rightly rejected by the
B High Court by giving reasons. The High Court has rightly held
that though the injured witnesses were related to each other,
having regard to the nature of evidence tendered by them, there
were no good grounds to discard their version. It has found that
their evidence was natural and there was nothing to find fault
c with their version. It has further held rightly that it is the quality
of the witness and not the quantity that matters. It has also taken
judicial notice of the fact that the public are reluctant to appear
and depose before the Court, especially in criminal cases
because of many obvious reasons. We fully endorse the said
conclusion of the High Court, while dealing with the said
0
submission made on behalf of the appellants.
28. It was then contended that the investigating officer
though visited the spot did not detect any empty cartridges or
bullets. PW-13 in his evidence has stated that he had neither
E detected any empty cartridges nor any pellets on the spot of
occurrence. If he had not detected it, then the reason is as
simple as that. It is not the case of the appellants that pellets
were strewn all around the place of occurrence visibly, but yet
the investigating officer failed to collect and place even some
F of them before the Court. When there was enough evidence to
support the version of the prosecution that the appellants, some
of whom were in possession of licenced arms and others were
holding unlicenced pistols and the shooting with those arms was
sufficiently established by the version of the injured eye-
G witnesses, we fail to understand as to how non-detection of
pellets or bullets will be of any consequence as a vitiating factor
to defeat the case of the prosecution. It is an undisputed fact
that both the deceased died of fire-arm injuries and all the
Injuries suffered by others were also firm-arm injuries. The said
H contention also therefore, deserves to be rejected.
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 199
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
29. The contention about not noting the route of arrival and A .·
route of escape, in our considered opinion, are very flimsy
submissions and do not deserve any consideration at all. It was
then contended that PW-3 was initially accosted by A1 to A-4
at around 8.30 to 8.45 a.m. and that he reported back at 9.00
to 9.15 a.m. at his house, by escaping from their clutches and B
that the alleged occurrence took place at 10 a.m. and, therefore,
within such a short time, there could have been no scope for
the appellants to gather fifteen persons to cause the attack on
the injured party. We have concluded in the earlier part of our
judgment that a one hour gap in a village was more than c
.· sufficient to gather any number of persons, especially when the
purpose of such gathering was to cause a physical attack on
a weak and unarmed party. It is relevant to note that while
thirteen persons were seriously injured, of whom two
succumbed to injuries, not even a scratch was reported against
0
any of the appellants. There was not even a suggestion that any
of the injured party was in possession of any weapon, like even
. a stick or a 'lathi'. Therefore, all the above factors only go to
show that the plea of lack of sufficient time to gather more
number of persons can hardly be a ground of defence, as
against the overwhelming direct evidence present before the E
Courts below.
30. It will be relevant to take note of the alleged motive,
which was not seriously disputed on behalf of the appellants.
It was unfortunate that in spite of the fact that members of the F
injured party earnestly attempted to dissuade the situation by
pacifying the appellants, no good sense appeared to hava
prevailed upon the appellants, who seem to have taken ari
upper hand and caused the onslaught on the unarmed
members of the injured party, of whom one was a female. The G
submissions of the appellants, therefore, do not merit
consideration on this ground as well.
31. A feeble submission was made that the FIR does not
even reveal that PW-2 was injured. On the other hand, a H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.~.~~
A reading of the FIR discloses that PW-2 specifically mentioned
that he along with others was injured due to the onslaught of
the appellants. Yet another feeble submission was that PW-3
stated that they were all standing outside the house at the time
when the accused party approached the place of occurrence,
·B while the case of the prosecution was that only after the arrival
of the accused the members of the injured party came out of
their house. We see absolutely no substance in the said
submission as we do not find that such a silly discrepancy can
cause any dent in the case of the prosecution, which is
c otherwise supported by overwhelming evidence, both oral as
well as documentary.
32. On behalf of the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
1165 of 2008, it was contended that he belonged to a different
village and that he was falsely implicated. In fact, the said
D contention was dealt with by the trial Court extensively, which
has noted that the said accused claimed that he was the
resident of the village Manduwala of District Saharanpur and
that he was actually present at Saharanpur on that date. In the
Section 313 statement, the said accused had admitted that he
E was 50 years old and at the time of the incident he would have
been 46-47 years old, while the family register which was
produced at his instance disclosed that his age was 38 years.
The trial Court, therefore, held that by relying upon such an age
old register, the abode of the said accused at the time of
F occurrence could not have been arrived at. On the other hand,
the evidence of PW-1 disclosed that the father-in-law of the said
accused is the resident of the village concerned, that since he
had no male child, the said accused was living along with his
father-in-law and that in the family register of the year 1999
G produced by the prosecution, as well as the copy of the electoral
list, the name of the said accused was clearly mentioned. The
contention on behalf of the said accused that due to enmity with
his father-in-law he was implicated, was rejected by saying that
if that was the case, there was no reason for the prosecution
H to leave out the father-in-law and implicate the son-In-law alone.
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 201
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
·The said point raised on behalf of the said accused also, A
therefore, does not merit any consideration. We, therefore, hold
that none of the points raised alleging lacunae in the case of
. the prosecution merit any consideration and the same are,
I therefore, rejected. The said question is also answered against
the appellant~. B
33. With that we come to the main question as to the
interpretation to be given to Section 141 'third', read along with
Section 149, IPC. In the forefront, we wish to highlight the
extent of power of this Court in the matter of interpretation of
words in the provision of a statute. In this context, at the outset, C
we wish to quote the words of Justice G.P. Singh in the
celebrated book on 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation',
where the learned author in Chapter II under the caption
'Guiding Rules' in sub-para 1(d) stated as under, under the
caption 'Departure from rule':- D
"(d) Departure from the rule
In dischargi.ng its interpretative function, the Court can
correct obvious drafting errors and so in suitable cases E
"the court will add words, or omit Words or substitute
words". But "before interpreting a statute in this way the
Court must be abundantly sure of three matters : (1) the
intended purpose of the statute or provision in question,
(2) that by inadvertence the draftsman and Parliament
failed to give effect to that purpose in the provision in F
question: and (3) the substance of the provision Parliament
would have made. although not necessarily the precise
words Parliament would have used. had the error in the
Bill been noticed." Sometimes even when these conditions
are satisfied, the court may find itself inhibited from G
interpreting .the statutory provision in accordance with
underlying intention of Parliament, e.g. when the alteration
in language is too far reaching or too big or when the
subject matter calls for strict interpretation such as a oenal
H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A provision." (See lnco Europe Ltd. v. First Choice
Distribution (a firm) (2000) 2 ALL ER 109, p.115 (HL)"
(Emphasis added)
34. In the decision of this Court reported in Surjit Singh
B Kalra v. Union of India and Another - 1991 (2) SCC 87, while
laying down the principle of purposive construction to be
adopted by Courts, it has been held as under in paragraph 19:-
"19. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute
c which are not there, but "where the alternative lies between
either supplying by implication words which appear to have ,
been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which
deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is
permissible to supply the words" (Craies Statute Law, 7th
D edn., p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia
Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar where it was
observed that the court construing a provision should not
easily read into it words which have not been expressly
enacted but having regard to the context in which a
provision appears and the object of the statute in which
E
the said provision is enacted the court should construe it
in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt
must always be made so to reconcile the relevant
provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the
statute. (See: Sirajul Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board
F of Waqf.)"
(Emphasis added)
35. The principle statute in Maxwell's Interpretation of
G Statutes under the Chapter "Exceptional Construction" is also
relevant, which was applied in one of the judgments of this
Court reported in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar
Power Ltd. - 2008 (4) SCC 755. The said principle has been
extracted in para 53 of the said judgment, which reads as
H under:-
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND 203
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
"53. In the chapter on "Exceptional Construction" in A
his book on Interpretation of Statutes, Maxwell writes:
"WHERE the language of a statute, in its ordinary
meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest
contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or
8
to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice,
presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon
it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the
structure of the sentence. Tb is may be done by departing
from the rules of grammar, by giving an unusual meaning
to particular words, by altering their collocation, by rejecting C
them altogether, or by interpolating other words, under the
influence, no doubt, of an irresistible conviction that the
legislature could not possibly have intended what its words
signify, and that the modifications thus made are mere
corrections of careless language and really give the true D
meaning."
36. Keeping the above basic principles in mind, we
considered the submission of Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior
counsel who appeared for the appellants in Criminal Appeal E
Nos.1157/2008, 1158/2008, 1161/2008 and 1164/2008.
According to the learned counsel, under Section 141 'third', the
expression 'other offence' used therein for the purpose of
ascertaining the common object of a person in an unlawful
assembly, would only be relatable to offences similar to those F
such as, mischief or criminal trespass, referred to in the said
clause. The learned senior counsel submitted that such an
interpretation should be laid by applying the principle of
ejusdem generis. The learned counsel, therefore, contended
that if that be the legal position, reading Section 141 'third' and G
Sections 147, 148 and 149 together, none of the offences
referred to in Sections 147 and 148 or any of the' other grave
offences falling under other provisions of the Indian Penal Code
will get attracted. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that
conviction for offences under Section 302 read with Sections
H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013J 3 S.C.R.
A 149 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, as well as Sections
147 and 148 of IPC with the aid of Section 141, could not have
been made. Though the said submission looks quite attractive
in the first blush, on a deeper scrutiny of the other provisions
contained in the Code, we are afraid that such a narrow
B interpretation, which is sought to be applied by the learned
senior counsel cannot be made.
37. In this context, Section 40 IPC, which defines 'offence'
is also required to be noted. In order to appreciate the
submission and to arrive at a correct conclusion, we feel that
C Section 40 IPC, Sections 141, 147, 148 and 149 are required
to be extracted which are as under:-
"40. "Offence"- Except in the Chapters and sections
mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word
D "offence" denotes a thing made punishable by this Code.
In Chapter IV, [Chapter VA] and in the following section,
namely, sections [64,65,67,71], 109,110,112,114,115,
116,117, [118,119,120] 187, 194, 195, 203, 211, 213,
214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331,
E
347, 348, 388, 389 and 445, the word "offence" denotes
a thing punishable under this code, or under any special
or local law as hereinafter defined.
And in sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216 and
F 441, the word "offence" has the same meaning when the
thing punishable under the special or local law is
punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term
of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.
G
141. Unlawful assembly - An assembly of five or more
persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the
common object of the persons composing that assembly
is-
First- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal '
H
MANGA.@MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 205
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament A
or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the
exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal
process; or
B
Third - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or
other offence; or
Fourth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal
force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any c
property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a
right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right
of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce
any right or supposed right; or
Fifth - by means of criminal force, or show of criminal · D
force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to
do. ·
Explanation - An assembly which was not unlawful when E
it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful
assembly.
147. Punishment for rioting- Whoever is guilty of rioting,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
F
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both. ·
148. Rioting, armed with deadly weap.on- Whoever is guilty
of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with
anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to G
cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.
149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A committed in prosecution of common object- 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,
B at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member
of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence"
38. Section 141 'third', clearly mentions that an assembly
of five or more persons is designated as an unlawful assembly
if the common object of the persons composing that assembly
C as among other offences namely, mischief or criminal trespass
or commission of other offence. A literal interpretation,
therefore, only means that apart from the offence of mischief
and criminal trespass, all other offences would fall within the
said clause 'third' mentioned in Section 141. Other related
D sections falling under the said Chapter VIII are up to Section
160. Reading Section 141 'third' along with Section 149, ifthe
commission of any other offence apart from mischief or criminal
trespass and such commission of offence was by a member
of an unlawful assembly, the prescription of common object will
E automatically get satisfied. When we refer to Section 144 in
this context, we find that joining an unlawful assembly armed
with a deadly weapon, which is likely to cause death, can be
inflicted with a punishment prescribed therein. If the
interpretation placed by learned senior counsel is accepted, we
F wonder whether the prescription placed in Section 144 could
be held to be in consonance with section 141 'third'. The
definite answer can only be in the negative. If mere possession
of a deadly weapon by a member of an unlawful assembly,
which is likely to cause death would attract Section 141'third'
G as a corollary, it will have to be held that the expression 'or other
offence' mentioned in Section 141 should without doing any
violence to the said provision, include all other offences apart
from the offence of mischief or criminal trespass. Similar will
be the interpretation that can be made relating to the offence,
H namely, rioting prescribed under Section 146 punishable under
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 207
. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Sections 147 as well as 148, namely, rioting, armed with deadly A
weapons.
39. The principle 'ejusdem generis' means 'where a law
lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to
them in general, the general statements only apply to the same B
kind of persons or things specifically listed'. The learned senior
counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that since the
expression "other offence" under Section 141 'third' has been
used along with the offence, mischief or criminal trespass, it
can only relate to similar such offences of the same species C
and not commission of all other offences as in the case on hand,
namely, murder or attempt to commit murder.
40. When we test the said submission by making reference
to the Chapter, in which the offence of mischief and trespass
are specified in the Code, we are able to expose the glaring D
fallacy in the submission of the learned senior counsel. Mischief
and criminal trespass fall under Chapter XVII. The caption of
the said Chapter is "of offences against property". The offences
dealt with in the said Chapter are governed by Sections 378
to 462. The offences dealt with apart from mischief and E
trespass are theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, dacoity with
murder, misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust,
dealing with stolen property and cheating.
41. While referring to the offence of mischief, Sections 435
to 438 deals with mischief by fire or any explosive substance
F
with the intent to destroy a house or other properties or to
destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel etc., for which
imprisonment for life or a term which may extend to ten years
· apart from fine can be imposed. While dealing with the offence
of trespass under Sections 449 and 450, whoever commits G
house-trespass for committing an offence punishable with death
can be punished for imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term not. exceeding ten years, apart from
fine. Similar such provisions for other types of criminal trespass ·
have also been provided fo· in the said Chapter. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A 42. We fail to appreciate as to how simply because the
offences mischief or criminal trespass are used preceding the
expression "other offence" in Section 141 'third', it should be
taken that such offence would only relate to a minor offence of
mischief or trespass and that the expression "other offence"
B should be restricted only to that extent. As pointed out by us
above, the offence of mischief and trespass could also be as
grave as that of an offence of murder, for which the punishment
of life imprisonment can be imposed as provided for under
Sections 438, 449, 450 etc. Therefore, we straight away hold
C that the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellants
to import the principle of 'ejusdem generis' to Section 141
'third', cannot be accepted.
43. The submission of the learned senior counsel cannot
also be countenanced by applying Section 40 of the Code,
D which specifically mentions as to how the term 'offence' will
have to be construed. In the main clause of the said section it
has been clearly set out that the word "offence" denotes a thing
made punishable by this Code except the Chapters and
Sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of the said section.
E Therefore, going by the main clause of Section 40, the word
"offence" since denotes the thing made punishable under the
Code, 'other offence' mentioned in Section 141 'third', can only
denote to offences, which are punishable under any of the
provisions of the Code. Therefore, by applying the main clause
F of Section 40, it can be straight away held that all offences
referred to in any of the provisions of the Code for which the
punishment is provided for would automatically fall within the
expression "other offence", which has been used in Section
141 'third'.
G 44. What has been excepted in the main clause of Section
40 are what has been specifically mentioned in sub-clauses 2
and 3 of the said section. As far as sub-clause 2 is concerned,
while making reference to Chapter IV and Chapter VA, as well
as other sections mentioned therein, it states that the word
H "offence" would denote a thing punishable under the Code,
MANGA@ MAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 209
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
namely, Indian Penal Code or under any special or local law, A
which have been defined to mean a law applicable to a
particular subject or a law applicable only to a particular part
of India. When we read sub-clause 3 of Section 40, Section
141 has been specifically mentioned in the said sub-clause. To
understand the. purport of the said clause, it will be worthwhile B
to extract that part of the provision which reads;
"And in sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216 and
441, the word "offence" has the same meaning when the
thing punishable under the special or local law is
punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term. C
of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine".
45. It is quite apparent that the said sub-clause in regard
to the offences under any special or local law, wherein
punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months or D
upwards with or without fine is prescribed, the meaning
assigned in those special or local laws are to be imported while
invoking Section 141 or other sections mentioned in the said
sub-clause 3 of Section 40.
E
46. Therefore, a conspectus reading of Section 40 makes
the position abundantly clear. that for all offences punishable
under the Indian Penal Code, the main clause of Section 40
would straight away apply in which event the expression "other
offence" used in Section 141 'third', will have to be construed
as any offence for which punishment is prescribed under the
F
Code. To put it differently, whomsoever is proceeded against
for any offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 40 sub-clause 1 would straight away apply
for the purpose of construing what the offence is and when it
comes to the question of offence under any other special or G
local law, the aid of sub-clauses 2 and 3 will have to be applied
for the purpose of construing the offence for which the accused
is proceeded against. Therefore, having regard to sub-clause
1 of Section 40 of the Code read along with Section 141 'third',
the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellants will H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A have to be rejected. We are, therefore, of the firm view that only
such a construction would be in tune with the purport and intent
of the law makers while defining an unlawful assembly for
commission of an offence with a common object, as specified
under Section 141 of the Code. In the case on hand, since mo
B special law or local law was attracted and the accuses were
charged only for the offence under the Indian Penal Code,
Section 40(1) gets attracted along with Section 141 'third' IPC.
Having regard to such a construction of ours on Section 141,
read along with Section 40 IPC, the offence found proved
c against the appellants, namely, falling under Sections 302 read
with 149, 307 read with 149 along with 147 and 148 of the Code
for which the. conviction and sentence imposed by the Court
below cannot be found fault with.
4'7. In the 'light of our above conclusions on the various
D submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, we do not
find any merit in these appeals. The appeals, therefore, fail and
the same are dismissed. Appellant Soma in Criminal Appeal
No.1158/2008 who is on bail is directed to surrender before
Magistrate forthwith for serving out the remaining period of
E sentence, if any, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Haridwar is directed to take him into custody and send him to
jail to serve out the sentence, if any. A copy of the judgment
be sent to the said CJM by the ·Registry forthwith.
F R.P. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Unlawful assembly"Sign in to search