RAM MANORATH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 10-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

195 
RAM MANORATH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
March JO. 1981 
[ Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.P. SEN, J.] 
Indian Penal Code 1860, Ss. 302 and 149-Murders committed by members of 
an unlawful assembly-Acquittal of some-Effect on prosecution of remaining-
Death sentence for two and life sentence for others-Propriety of. 
Out of twelve persons, charged with the offences under section ~302 read 
with section 149 I.P.C. and various other charges, eight were convicted. Two 
of them, C and R were sentenced to death while the others were sentenced 
to imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the death sentence of two 
accused, acquitted one and confirmed the conviction of others. 
A 
B 
c 
The case of the prosecution was that on the day of the occurrence at 
about sun-set C shot dead two of the deceased while two others were shot by 
D 
R. The prosecution relied on the dying declaration of one of the deceased 
and examined four eye witnesses. 
Jn appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that the fact that the trial court did not find it safe to accept the prosecution 
evidence and acquitted five out of twelve persons mentioned in the F.I.R. at 
one stage or the other should be sufficient to discard the prosecution case in 
respect of the other accused as well. 
Allowing the appeals in part, 
HELD : l(i). It is difficult to hold that the witnesses had made out an 
entirely false or concocted story against the appellants. The circumstance that 
three of the four prosecution witnesses had been injured during the course of the 
incident affords a strong guarantee of their presence at the scene of the occurrence. 
There is also no reason why the four eye witnesses should falsely implicate per-
sons against whom they had no grouse. 
[197 F-G] 
(ii). The reason why the trial court and the High Court acquitted some 
of the accused was that in the case of some of them there was a possibility of 
mistaken identity while, in regard to some others, the evidence was not of such a 
nature or character as to justify the acceptance of their complexity beyond a 
reasonable doubt. [197 HJ 
· 
E 
F 
G 
2. One of the accused J must be acquitted for the reason that though his 
name was mentioned alongwith the names of eleven others at the outset of the 
First Information Report, the text of that report does not attribute any part to 
H 
him ·at all. His name had been included in an omnibus manner, by sayini: 
that he along with others wielded his latbi. [198 C-D] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1981] 3 S.C.R. 
3. It is unsafe to sentence C and R to death. One of the deceased imp-
licated R in his dying declaration as the person, who shot at him but as pointed 
out by the Trial Court itself, the dying declaration suffers from several infirmities 
and, it cannot therefore, be relied upon for the purposes of holding that it was 
this accused, who shot the deceased. Secondly, the occurrence took place an 
hour after sun-set and it is hardly likely that if a large group of ten or twelve 
persons had formed an unlawful assembly, the witnesses would be in a position 
to identify minute details of the incident. The prosecution version in regard to 
specific overt acts that C and R fired shots resulting in the fatal injuries to the 
two deceased seems exaggerated. No distinction can be made in the case of the 
other accused, who have been sentenced to life . imprisonment and the case of 
these two accused. The sentence of death imposed on them is, therefore, set 
aside. They are sentenced to imprisonment for life. [198 E-G, 199 B-D] 
4. The conviction and sentence of the remaining appellants are con-
firmed. [199 E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
345 & 346 of 1978. 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
14.1.1978 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Crimi-
nal Appeals Nos. 496, 508 and 542 of 1977. 
Frank Anthony and Sushi! Kumar for the Appellant. 
H.R. Bhardwaj, G. S. Narayanan and R. K. Bhatt for the, 
E 
Respondent. 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. 
Twelve persons were put up for trial 
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich on various 
charges, the principal charge being under section 302 read with 
section 149 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted four 
persons and convicted the remaining eight of the offences of which 
they were charged. Two out of those eight persons namely, Chhotey 
and Ram Ma

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