MOHAN SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 26-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 327 
MOHAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No.663 of 2010) 
AUGUST 26, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.302 - Murder -
Threatening calls received by the c 
informant for extortion of money and threat to his brother's life 
allegedly made by the appellant - Informant identified the 
voice as that ofthe appellant - Informant's brother and father 
shot at resulting in death of his brother- Trial court convicting 
appellant for conspiracy of murder and extortion of money -
0 
High Court upheld the same - On appeal, held: Courts below 
considered the evidence of the two investigating officers, apart 
from the evidence of informant and the other witnesses and 
the materials on record before coming to the conclusion that 
appellant was guilty - The fact that the name of registered E 
allottees of the SIM cards of these mobile phones could not 
be traced was not relevant' in this connection - Evidence of 
informant that he knew the voice of the appellant was not 
challenged - Evidence of investigating officer that eight calls 
were recorded between the mobiles of the appellant and l1is 
conspirator was also not challenged - Substantive evidence 
F 
was placed to prove the meeting of minds and criminal 
conspiracy between the appellant and conspirator about the 
murder of the victim - There is no reason to interfere with the 
concurrent finding - Conviction upheld. 
Appeal: 
Concurrent findings of courts below - Appeal before 
Supreme Court -
Scope of interference - Held: After a 
327 
G 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011) 12 S.C.R. 
A concurrent finding by two courts normally the Supreme Court 
in an appeal against such finding is slow and circumspect to 
upset such finding unless Supreme Court finds the finding to 
be perverse. 
8 
Plea - Fresh plea - Plea relating to errors in framing of 
chargelmisjoinder of charge raised before the Supreme Court 
for the first time - Held: Such plea is not normally considered 
by the Supreme Court. 
c 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss.211 to 215 - If the ingredients of the section charged 
with are obvious and implicit, conviction under such head can 
be sustained irrespective of the fact whether the said section 
has been mentioned or not in the charge - Omission or defect 
0 
in framing of charge would not disable the criminal court from 
convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have 
been proved on the evidence on record. 
ss.211 to 215 - Framing a charge - Purpose of- Held: 
Is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and 
E precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is 
called upon to meet in the course of a trial - In the instant case 
from the evidence led by the prosecution the charge of murder 
was brought home against the appellant - The accused had 
clear notice of what was alleged against him and he had 
F adequate opportunity of defending himself against what was 
alleged against him - No prejudice was caused to him nor 
was there any failure of justice for non-mentioning of s. 302 !PC 
in the charge since all the ingredients of the offence were 
disclosed - In the charge it was clearly mentioned that the 
G accused has committed the murder - By mentioning that the 
accused has committed the murder all the ingredients of the 
charge were mentioned and the requirement of s.211, sub-
section (2) was complied with. 
H 
The prosecution case was that the informant received 
MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
329 
phone calls from the appellant few days prior to the A 
incident of murder demanding RS.50,000/-
and 
threatening him that non fulfillment of the demand of 
money would result in dire consequences. On the fateful 
day, informant received a call from his driver to the 'effect 
that the informant's brother and father were shot at while B 
they were in their shop and that both were taken to 
hospital. The brother of the informant died. The informant 
was told that the shots were fired by one 'LS' and 'NS'. 
The informant lodged complaint wherein he stated that 
his family knew the appellant and 'LS' from an earlier c 
incident in 2004, when on the occasion of Durga Puja, 
similar demand was made and a complaint was made 
about that incident at the police station and that he 
identified the voice of the telephone caller as that of the 
appellant. These statements were supported by the 0 
informant's father and the other brother. 
The trial court found 

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