MANGA @ MAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 03-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2013] 3 S.C.R. 175 · 
MANGA @ MAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2008) 
MAY 3, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
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 
A 
B 
c 
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 
d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.