MUNNI SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 21-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
MUNNI SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
APRIL 21, 1992 
(MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI ANDS. C. AGRAWAL, ~J.] 
B 
Penal Code, JB{J()-Section 396-Dacoity--Conviction-Appreciation 
of evidence-Four sets of prosecution witnesses-Evidence of three sets not 
reliable-Reliability of the fourth set-Conviction basing on the evidence of 
P.Ws.2 and JI-Legality of-Identity of accused not established-Effect of 
C 
The appellants, the victims of the dacoity and. other prosecution 
witnesses were residents of the village, where the crime took place in the 
house of P.W.11. 
The accused were closely related. P.W. ll's cousin and uncle were D 
P.W.3 and the deceased, respectively, and P.W.2 was also a close relative 
of P.W.11. 
There was a simmering discontent between the family of P.W.11 and 
the family of the accused, Sukhari Singh. The accused-Sukhari Singh 
claimed that a pond was bestowed on him by the erstwhile Zamindar before 
the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition Act. As the tank was 
under the control of the accused, he prevented the cattle of the villagers 
from drinking water from .it. 
3/4 days prior to the occurrence of dacoity, the Panchayat of the 
village suggested to the accused-Sukhari Singh to surrender the tank in 
the name of a Shiva temple~ The accused suggested to the Panchayat the 
place constructed and occupied by the complainant party, (the deceased 
and his relatives) for tying their cattle on the unsettled lands at the bank 
of the pond also should be likewise given to the Shiva temple. The 
Panchayat was not aggreeable to the counter suggestion of the accused. 
It was the case of the prosecution that the dacoity was mastennined 
and made at the house of the complainant with a sole purpose to avenge. 
E 
F 
G 
On the night intervening 5th-6th April, 1970, the P.W.11, the first 
informant and his cousin, P.W.J·and his uncle, the deceased were sleeping F 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(19<J2) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
on the cots lay spread in the outer courtyard of their house. P.W. 11 was 
awaken by some noise as if some persons were coming. He stood up and 
switched on his five-cell torch and saw 20-25 dacoits armed with lathis, 
bhallas, garasas, and guns coming toward~ his house. On his focussing the 
torch they stopped. Then the dacoits also switched on their torches. P.W.11 
B 
c 
recognised in the torch light the accused inclusive of 5 appellants. Accused· 
Sukhari Singh shouted, "kill-kill." Accused- Munni Singh fired with his gun 
at P.W.11 but the gun fire did not hit him. While P.W. 11 was running, one 
of the dacoits hit him with a stick with an iron ring. There was some oozing 
-0f blood but it· was not profuse. He ran for about 30 steps to get to his 
wheat field, which was about 2 to 3 feet below the level of his courtyard. 
From there he saw the remaining part of the_ occurrence. 
P.W.ll's uncle was shot by the accused Munni Singh and he fell 
down. Other dacoits who were near him started hitting him with spears. 
·one of the dacoits held a ladder in his hand, through which he 
D climbed up to the roof of the inner house, from where he jumped into the 
female apartment and opened the outer door. Then the dacoits ent~red the 
house and started looting and plundering. Two dacoits scolded his cousin 
P.W.3 to keep lying down on his cot. In the occurrence, P.W.3, received no 
injury. The dacoits were active for about 15 to 20 minutes. On hearing the 
E 
noise and commotion of the villagers, the dacoits decamped with the looted 
goods. Some of the villagers followed them to some distance but the dacoits 
kept firing on them. With the result that some of them were injured. 
F 
P.W.ll's llncle and other injured persons were removed to be taken 
to the hospital, but P.W.'s uncle died on the way. Then P.W.11 proceeded 
to the Pol.ice Station, taking the dead body of his u~cle with him, and 
lodged F .I.R. 
P.W.12 went to the spot and saw the evidence of dacoity in the form 
of things lying scattered and some of the articles left behind by the dacoits. 
G He had the injured ·persons examined medically. He arrested .the accused 
persons. Finally investigation was completed by a.nother officer and the 
accused persons were put up for trial. 
The matter went to trial under the old Code of Criminal Procedure 
before the First AddiUonal Sessions Judge against the 6 named persons 
H and one other. There were commitment proceedings before a Magistr~te 
MUNNI SINGH v. STATE 
607 
in which evidence was recor

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