MUNUWA @ SATISH ETC. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 26-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
MUNUWA @ SATISH ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2224-2225 of 2010)
AUGUST 26, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 34, 302, 307 – Murder – On the fateful
day, while the victim-principal of the College was sitting with his
family physician and private practitioner-PW-6 outside his office
of the college campus, three persons, A-1, A-2, and A-3, allegedly
entered the verandah and fired gunshots at the principal as well as
at PW-6, and fled – First aid given to the principal and thereafter
taken to Police Station on bullock cart – FIR lodged by the victim,
thereafter sent to hospital where he died of shock and hemorrhage
due to injuries caused by several gun shots – Trial court convicted
the accused persons u/s 302, 307 r/w s.34 – High Court upheld the
order – Meanwhile A-2 passed away – As regards A-1 and A-3 held
: There are certain glaring contractions in the evidences produced
– Failure of prosecution to recover blood-stained materials from
the place of occurrence, empty cartridges, pellets, or any other
weapon used for commission of the crime, coupled with the
contradictions and unnatural conduct of the eye witnesses, and the
inconsistencies in the two dying declarations – Prosecution has not
proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt – Thus, the accused
entitled to benefit of doubt, and acquitted from all charges.
Meghraj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 :
[1994] 3 SCR 592; Ram Sewak and Ors. v. State of
M.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 259 : 2004 (1) Suppl. JT 217;
Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 13 SCC 112 : [2007] 8 SCR 713 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 3 SCR 592
referred to
Para 21
[2007] 8 SCR 713
referred to
Para 28
[2010] 5 SCR 137
referred to
Para 23
86
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 86
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
87
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2224-2225 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 10.02.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.290 & 587 of
1981.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Likhi Chand
Bonsle, Rahat Bansal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. These appeals challenge the judgment of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 290 and 587 of 1981
dated 10.02.2010, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 402 of 1979 dated 31.01.1981. By
the said judgment, the Sessions Judge, Bareilly convicted all the accused
under Section 302 and Section 307, each read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and
rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, respectively.
2. The Prosecution Case: The case of the prosecution is that, on
24.08.1979, around 6:30 p.m., Shri Iqbal Bahadur Saxena, Principal of
the Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter-College, Giani, Uttar Pradesh1, since
deceased was sitting with his family physician and private practitioner
Dr. Asghar Ali2 in the verandah outside his office, situated in the college
campus. He sent his security guard Fazal Maseeh3 to fetch an empty
bottle of medicines from his residence, also within the college campus.
As PW-1 was returning with the bottle, the three accused, Gullu @
Rajesh (A-1), Vimal Kumar @ Chunnoo (A-2), and Munuwa @ Satish
(A-3), are alleged to have entered the verandah from the south, fired
gunshots at the Deceased as well as at PW-6, and fled towards the
north of the building. PW-6 went to his dispensary located nearby and
sought the help of Mahendra Kumar, a compounder at his dispensary, to
bring the Deceased who had become unconscious, to the dispensary on
1 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’.
2 hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-6’.
3 hereinafter referred to as ‘PW-1’.
MUNUWA @ SATISH ETC. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
a cot for administering first-aid. After that, the Deceased was put on a
bullock cart along with the cot to proceed to Police Station Aliganj.
PW-6 is supposed to have followed on another bullock cart.
3. Upon reaching the Police Station, the Deceased lodged an FIR
at 8:30 p.m. for offence under Section 307 of the IPC, a translated
version of which reads as follows: -
“I, Iqbal Bahadur Saxena S/o Pyare La
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.