MANGOO @ MANGAL SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 24-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 331 
MANGOO @ MANGAL SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2008) 
JULY 24, 2008 
B 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r. w. s. 149 - Five Accused con-
victed and sentence to life imprisonment - Affirmed by High 
Court - Three accused filed SLP - Supreme Court passed c 
;udgment altering conviction to s. 304(Part I) and reducing 
sentence to 10 years - Held: Benefit of the judgment would 
extend to the non-appealing accused also - Sentence/Sen-
tencing - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Equity - Re-
D 
..,_ 1 
duction of sentence in case of appealing accused - Benefit of 
- Held: To be extended to non- appealing accused a/so -
Sentence/Sentencing. 
Five persons faced trial for alleged commission of E 
offence punishable under s.302 read with s.149 IPC. The 
trial Court convicted all the five accused persons includ-
ing the appellant and sentenced him to undergo RI for 
life. All the accused persons filed appeal before- High 
Court, which was dismissed. Three of the accused per-
sons filed appeal before this· Court but appellant did not F 
~ 
approach this Court. In respect of the three accused, this 
Court held that Exception 4 to s.300 IPC was applicable 
to the facts of the case and altered the conviction to s.30'4 
Part I IPC and held that custodial sentence of 10 years 
and fine as was imposed by the High Court would meet G 
the ends of justice. 
=-- • 
The appellant filed a writ petition, and this Court 
treated it as SLP against the judgment of the High Court. 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-State contended that since the appel-
B 
lant had not filed special leave petition in time, he is not 
entitled to the benefit of the judgment in respect of the 
three accused. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: By exercising suo motu power, this Court in 
several cases has granted the benefit of acquittal, con-
viction for a lesser offence or reduction of sentence to 
non-appealing accused. Similar course needs to be 
adopted. In the circumstances, by applying the decision 
C in *Vajrapu's case, the conviction of the appellant is altered 
to s.304 Part I IPC and 10 years' custodial sentence with 
fine as was imposed by the High Court would meet the 
ends of justice, since the appellant stands on similar foot-
ing with the other accused persons who were the appel-
D lants in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2003. [Paras 7,8] [335-
H, 336-A,B,C] 
I 
*Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu and Ors. v. State of A.P and 
Ors. JT (2003) 7 SC 558; Hardyal v. State of Rajasthan (1991) 
Supp 1 SCC 148; Pyare Singh v. State of M.P (1992) Supp 
E 3 SCC 45; Jashubha v. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 353; 
Dandu v. State ofA.P (1999) 7 SCC 69; BijoySingh v. State 
of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147; Rajaram v. State of M.P (1994) 
Supp 2 SCC 153; Gurucharan v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 
sec 698; Akhil Ali v. State of M.P (1982) 3 sec 370; Rattan 
F 
Singh v. State of Punjab (1988) 1 SCC 14; Jayantibhai v. State 
of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165; Suresh v. State of Bihar (2003) 
4 SCC 128; Apren Joseph v. State of Kera/a (1973) 2 SC R 
16; Hira Lal v. Delhi Administration (1973) 3 SCC 398; Uma 
Shankar v. State of Bihar (2005) 1 O sec 336 - relied on. 
G 
Ghappoo Yadav and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
H 
JT (2003) 3 SC 474; Harbans singh v. State of UP and Ors. 
(1982) 2 sec 101 -referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2003) 7 SC 558 
relied on 
Para 4 
r 
/'"' 
' 
t 
~ 
' 
~-
I 
.; 
MANGOO @ MANGAL SINGH v. 
333 
STATE OF M.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
(1991) supp 1 sec 148 
relied on 
Para 7 
A 
(1992) supp 3 sec 45 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1994) 4 sec 353 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1999) 1 sec 69 
relied on 
Para 7 
B 
,, ~ 
(2002) 9 sec 147 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1994) supp 2 sec 153 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2003) 2 sec 698 
relied on 
Para 7 
c 
(1982) 3 sec 370 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1988) 1 sec 14 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2003) 4 sec 128 
relied on 
Para 7 
D 
--
(1973) 2 SCR 16 
relied on 
Para 7 
<\ 
(1973) 3 sec 398 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2005) 1 o sec 336 
relied on 
Para 7 
E 
JT (2003) 3 SC 47 4 
referred to 
Para 1 
(1982) 2 sec 101 
referred to 
Para 5 
I 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
F 
No. 1145 of 2008 
Joi 
(@ SLP Crl. No. 5417 of 2008@ W.P. Criminal No. 192 
of 2005) 
Arna Das and L.N. Gupta for the Appellant. 
G 
C.D. Singh and Munendra Kumar Singh for the Resp.on-
dent. 
- .. 
The Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.