MOHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 28-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
JANUARY 28, i999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 & 34-Murder Common inten-
tiort-f'roof of-No fire arm used by accused K and no active role assigned 
to him-Role assigned to him is merely exhortiort-Murder not pre-detennined 
C or planned-Emotion developed on the spot-Exhortion words used by ac-
cused was of weakest nature and the last on~as subsequent to strong 
abusing and threatening language used by other two accused because of which 
common intention had already mature~Words used by accused can mean 
both kill or beat-Exhortion attributed to accused cannot lead to conclusion 
D that it was with same intention to kill deceased-Held, accused 'K' is entitled 
to benefit of doubt. 
Evidence Act, 1872:-Section 45-Fire Arm injury-Blackening of skin 
below the injury does not necessarily lead to the inference that firing was from 
a close range-Ova/shaped injury-Direction of pellets being downwards and 
E travelling right to left corroborating prosecution evidence of firing from roof 
top which was on the right side of place of occurrence-Medical Evidence 
fully corroborated by unimpeachable evidence of eye witnesses-Held, mere 
reference in medical report of blackening under surf ace of injuries cannot lead 
to an inference that firing was from close range. 
F 
Medical Evidence at variance with Direct Evidence-Mere variance of 
prosecution story with medical evidence not to lead to outright dismissal of 
• 
prosecution case-Duty of court to remove chaff from grain. 
Criminal TriaHdentification of accused--lnsufficieny of light-Moon-
lit nigh4 lantern burning and accused persons and eye witnesses closely 
G related-Held, their appearance and voice being known, the identification 
cannot be doubted for paucity of light. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154-First Information 
Report-Lack of details about the part played by each accused persons in the 
H commission of crime-FIR lodged by chowkidar at instance of deceased's 
276 
MOHAN SINGH v. STATE 
277 
-~ 
father who happened to be eye-witnes~Deceased's father being in remorseful A 
mood could not give details except to request the chowkidar to lodge a 
report-Held, absence of details in the FIR was of no consequence. 
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 
34 I.P .C. The enmity subsisting between the parties, led to commission of 
crime resulting into firing by the main accused resulting in the death of B 
,. 
one 'B', the deceased. The three accused namely the main accused, accused 
K and accused A were arrested. During investigation, the weapon used by 
main accused was recovered and charges were framed. The Trial Court 
convicted the main accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25/27 
of the Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment and one year c 
rigorous imprisonment respectively. The accused K and A were convicted 
and sentenced under Sectio_n 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment. The High 
Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of three accused but set-aside 
_____J 
the conviction and sentence of the main accused under Section 25/27 of the 
Arms Act. 
D 
<I( 
In this appeal, challenging the order, the appellants contented that 
the post-mortem report of blackening under surface of iejuries indicated 
:!!!!!!!!!!( 
that the firing was from a very close range which contradicted the prosecu-
tion case that firing by the main accused was from the roof of the third 
floor which could not be a firing from close range. The identification of the E 
accused was doubtful for the insufficiency of light. Moreover, the FIR did 
not disclose the details of commission of the offence and the part played 
by each of the accused persons and this led to improvement and concoction 
of the prosecution story. During the pendency of this appeal, accused 'A' 
died. Hence his appeal stood abated. 
F 
..., 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The appeal of main accused fails and his conviction and 
sentence is maintained whereas the appeal of accused 'K' is allowed and 
his conviction and sentence under Section-302 read with Section 34 IPC is G 
set-aside. [294-B-C] 
4 
2. The common intention had already matured by the strong abusing 
" 
and threatening language used by the other two accused. The exhortation 
words 'Mar Sale Ko' used by the accused 'K' meant both kill or beat and 
it is the weakest language used out of the three accus

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