LexMANGU SINGH versus DHARMENDRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1035 MANGUSINGH v. DHARMENDRA&ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2230 of 2011) DECEMBER 16, 2015 A B [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860- s. 302 rlw. s. 25 of Arms Act, 1959 - Prosecution under- Initial FIR on the basis of confessional c statement of the accused - Later another FIR by PW1 - In - statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty and took defence that the alleged murder was due to a loot- Trial court convicted the accused - High Court acquitted him - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, PW-1 cannot be D said to be an eye-witness - The evidence of another eye- witness PW-4 is also not reliable - There are material alterations in the testimonies of the witnesses- Second FIR is an outcome of manipulation, deliberation, concoction and is a sham ante-timed document - Confessional FIR is also E not reliable in the facts of the case - The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - The accused was rightly acquitted by High Court-Arms Act, 1959 -s.25. Evidence Act, 1872: ss. 101 and 106 - s. 106 does not absolve the prosecution's burden uls. 101 to prove its case regarding guilt of accused, beyond reasonable doubt. s.27- What is required to be proved is not the material recovery, but the disclosure, based upon which the recovery is made. ~035 F G H 1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A Evidence - Motive - Evidentiary value - Motive is not a necessary element in deciding culpability but an equally important missing link which can be used to corroborate the evidences. Criminal Trial:- 8 Standard of proof- The defence needs to establish its case c based on probability, whereas the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD :1. Motive is not a necessary element in deciding culpability but it is an equally important missing link which can be used to corroborate the evidences. In the present case, the motive of the accused was stated to be two-fold. D One being that he was in love with a girl, whom he wanted to marry but his wife and daughter were the hindrance. The other immediate motive was the non-fulfillment of dowry demand by PW1 (father of one of the deceased). Even if the fact of alleged relation is presumed to be true, still PW1 's E deposition to this fact is hearsay. PW1 neither stated this fact in the FIR nor in the statement made before the police, and it was only after two and half years later that it was stated in his deposition before the Court. In the investigation no such fact came to light, nor the wife of PW1 (who had F disclosed this fact to PW1) was summoned for making statements before the police or before the Court. The witness even testified that this alleged relation of the accused was reported to the accused's father upon which he apologized for his conduct, however, the said fact was G not proved. As against the immediate cause, which again is a material addition at the time of deposition before the Court, neither such fact was made before the police nor investigated by the police. The Court did not even try the H accused/respondent for the alleged offence of dowry MAN GU SINGH v. DHARMENDRA &ANR. 1037 demand, as prima facie no case was made out. [Para 8] [1042- A F-H; 1043-A-D] 2. PW1 came to the spot after information was sent to him by the police. The intimation was him after the accused is alleged to have made the written FIR. In these B circumstances, PW1 cannot be said to be.an eye-witness. to the offence. PW4 is the actual eye-witness. At the outset, it was admitted by PW1 that PW4 was his distant brother living in the same village. The deposition of PW4, is unnatural and not to be trustworthy. His deposition is C contradictory to the medical evidence. The blood-stained clothes of the victims or bullet ridden car parts were not recovered. It was not investigated at all as to in which portion of the car the victims were killed. [Para 9] [1043-E-F; 1044-B- ~ D 3. There also appears a material alteration in the testimonies of the witnesses. The conduct of PW4 seemed unnatural. Facts of the case also make the conduct of PW1 very unnatural and suspicious. The facts, clearly suggest E that the second FIR (lodged by PW1) is an outcome of manipulation, deliberation, concoction and is a sham ante-timed document. [Paras 9 and 10] [1044-E; 1045-F- G] F 4. The series of eve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.