MULLA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 08-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 633 
MULLA & ANR. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 8, 2010 
B 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H. L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - 3021149, 365 and 148 - Abduction 
and murder for ransom - Eye-witnesses to the incident -
Three of them injured eye-witnesses - Prosecution case C 
supported by medical evidence - Accused identified by two 
of the eye-witnesses in Test Identification Parade - Conviction 
and death sentence by courts below - On appeal, held: 
Prosecution case supported by version of eye-witnesses and 
medical evidence -
Test Identification Parade properly D 
conducted -
Conviction justified - In view of the socio-
economic background of the convicts, death sentence altered 
to life imprisonment - Life sentence to extend to their full life, 
subject to remission by Government- Sentence/Sentencing. 
Evidence: Test identification parade - Purpose and E 
object of holding - Evidentiary value of - Discussed. 
Sentence/Sentencing - death sentence - Mitigating 
circumstance - Held: Socio-economic factors leading to crime 
is relevant in judicial decision making in sentencing - Such 
F 
factors lead to another mitigating factor i.e. ability of the guilty 
to reform. 
Appellant accused was prosecuted for having 
assaulted three persons and further for having abducted G 
five persons and killing them for ransom. The prosecution 
case was that appellants' accused alongwith two (one girl 
and a boy) came to the filed of the victims while th~y were 
633 
H 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
irrigating their fields. They demanded Rs. 10,000 from 
each of them. They assaulted three of the persons with 
the butt of the gun and thereafter abducted five persons 
and asked three persons to go to the village and bring 
the amount demanded, threatening that otherwise th~ 
s five abducted persons would be killed. The three persons 
reached the village and thereafter lodged a complaint. On 
investigation for searching the abducted persons, their 
dead bodies were recovered. The appellants accused 
were convicted u/ss. 365, 148 and 302/149 IPC. They were 
c sentenced to death. High Court confirmed the sentence 
and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that either in the complaint or in 
the first information report, no one was specifically named 
for the commission of offence. Though a suggestion was 
made to prosecution witnesses that the accused persons 
are from the nearby villages, the same was stoutly denied 
E and in such circumstance, miscreants being outsiders, 
it would not be possible to name those persons in the 
complaint itself without further verification. On the other 
hand, the prosecution through their witnesses 
particularly, PWs 1 to 4, established that it was the 
F 
appellants, who along with few more persons committed 
the offence by killing five persons mercilessly for non-
payment of ransom amount which they demanded for the 
release of five persons caught hold by them. In view of 
the same, though none was named in the FIR, 
G subsequently, the name of the appellants came into light 
during investigation. [Para 8] [649-E-H; 650-A] 
H 
1.2. PW 1 had asserted that he had seen the faces of 
all the· accused persons in the light of the torch. However, 
he admitted that he could not go and attend the 
MULLA v. STATE OF U.P. 
635 
identification parade due to his illness. In cross-
A 
examination also, he asserted that he had seen the guns 
in the hands of the accused and three of the victims were 
assaulted by the accused persons by the butt of the gun. 
He informed that he had witnessed the incident from the 
distance of 10 mts. He also informed the court that one B 
of the deceesed who came from the western side had 
lantern and torch and when he focused his torch on 
criminals they assaulted him and snatched away his 
torch and extinguished the lantern. (Para 9] [651-C-E] 
1.3. PW 2 corroborated the evidence of PW 1. It is C 
further seen from his evidence that he also sustained 
injuries by one of the miscreants and this is also clear 
from his assertion and statement as well as the evidence 
of PW 7. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of 
PW-2 that he did not see these persons on any other D 
occasion except on the date of occurrence and at the 
time of identification parade. He being an injured eye-
witness as well as identified the appellants i

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