MANO DUTT & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 29-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 686 
MANO DUTT & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss. 302134 - Murder - Dispute over land - Six accused 
- Murderous assault on the deceased with lathis - Brother 
and father of the deceased trying to rescue deceased also 
received serious injuries - Out of six accused, four convicted 
uls.302 rlw s.34 by trial court - One accused died during 
0 
pendency of the appeal before /-figh Court - High Court 
upheld the conviction of rest three uls.302 rlw s.34- Separate 
appeal by one convict before Supreme Court already 
dismissed - On appeal by other two convicts, held: All the 
accused persons had come prepared, mentally and 
E physically, to assault the deceased and in furtherance to their 
common intention, had even given exhortation to kill the 
deceased - This incident was witnessed by natural witnesses, 
the father/brother of the deceased who also received number 
of injuries -
The defence miserably failed to prove 
commission of the offence in self-defence - Dispute had not 
F 
arisen at the spur of the moment as the evidence clearly 
showed that the accused had gone to the site in question with 
a commori intention and with the preparedness to assault and 
even kill the deceased - Prosecution was able to prove its 
case beyond reasonable doubt and has brought home the 
G guilt of the accused u/s.302 rlw s.34. 
s.34 - Applicability of - Held: In the instant case, six 
accused were charge-sheeted uls.302 rlw ss.149 and 323 -
However, two of the accused were acquitted by trial court and 
H 
686 
MANO DUTT & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 
687 
remaining were convicted of an offence u/ss.302134 and 3231 A 
34 - High Court acquitted all the accused of offence u/ss. 3021 
34 - One of the accused died during the pendency of that 
appeal - Because the alleged number of accused having 
become less than five, nature of the offences were changed 
from offence uls.149 to s.34 - In the circumstances of the 
B 
case, the possibility of presence of all other persons in the 
appellants' party cannot be excluded - Even where there are 
less than five persons who are accused, but the facts and the 
evidence of the case is convincing as in the instant case, 
where the accused had returned to the place of occurrence c 
with complete preparedness and after giving lalkar had 
attacked the deceased there, they have to be held liable for 
commission of the crime - It cannot be ignored that the extent 
of participation, even in a case of common intention covered 
u/s. 34 would not depend on the extent of overt act - If all the 
0 
accused have committed the offence with common intention 
and inflicted injuries upon the deceased in a pre-planned 
manner, the provisions of s.34 would be applicable to all. 
Evidence: 
Right of self defence - Held: It is a settled canon of 
evidence jurisprudence that one who alleges a fact must 
prove the same - When a person claims exercise of private 
self-defence, the onus lies on him to show that there were 
E 
circumstances and occasions for exercising such a right. 
F 
Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused 
persons - Effect on prosecution case - Held; The normal rule 
is that whenever the accused sustains injury in the same 
occurrence in which the complainant suffered the injury, the 
prosecution should explain the injury upon the accused - But, 
G 
it is not a rule without exception that if the prosecution fails to 
give explanation, the prosecution case must fail - Before the 
non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused, 
by the prosecution witnesses, may be held to affect the 
prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A existence of two conditions: that the injuries on the person of 
the accused were also of a serious nature; and that such 
injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence 
in question -
Where the evidence is clear, cogent and 
creditworthy; and where the court can distinguish the truth from 
B falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries on the person of the 
accused are not explained by the prosecution cannot, by 
itself, be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the 
prosecution witnesses and consequently, the whole case of 
the prosecution . 
c 
. ' 
Witnesses: 
Interested witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: When 
the statement of witnesses, who are rel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.