STATE OF U. P. versus MANGAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 16-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 388 
-
.. 
• 
A 
STATE OF U. P. 
v. 
MANGAL SINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 16, 200J 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
>-
Penal Code, 1860.- ss. 302 rlw 149 and 148 - Three 
c members of a family done to death - Death caused due to 
gun-shot injuries - At the relevant time, deceased and PW1 
were travelling in a bullock-cart - Trial Court convicted the 
accused-respondents - Conviction set aside by High Court 
on the premise that the evidence of PWs did not inspire 
D confidence -: Justification of - Held: On facts, justified - From 
_, 
..._ 
evidence of PWs, it is clear that they could not have witnessed 
the occurrence as claimed and they also changed the place 
of occurrence and the manner in which the alleged 
occurrence took place - The witnesses were shifting their 
E version almost at every stage - Veracity of the prosecution 
version was doubtful - If PW 1 was driving the bullock cart, 
as claimed, it remained unexplained as to how he did not 
suffer any injury while those sitting behind him in the bullock-
cart sustained serious injuries resulting in their death -
lo' -
F Judgment of High does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant 
interference. 
According to the prosecution, three members of a 
family were done to death by the accused-respondents. 
.. 
The respondents allegedly fired gun-shots at the 
G deceased while they alongwith PW1 were travelling in a 
j,. " 
bullock-cart. The trial court convicted the respondents 
under ss.148 and 302 r/w s.149 IPC. Olil appeal, the High 
Court set aside the conviction on the premise that the 
evidence of PWs1 and 3 did not inspire confidence. 
H 
388 
STATE OF U. P. v. MANGAL SINGH & ORS. 
389 
Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, it is clear 
that they could not have witnessed the occurrence as 
8 
claimed and they also changed the place of occurrence 
and the manner in which the alleged occurrence took 
place. The witnesses were shifting their version almost 
at every stage. [Para 5] [391-A, B] 
2. The High Court noted various factors like C 
changing the place of occurrence and the manner in 
which the alleged occurrence took place. This itself was 
sufficient to doubt the veracity of the prosecution version. 
In addition, the High Court noted several other factors 
like PW1 not sustaining any injury when persons sitting 
D 
behind him received gun shot injuries and lost their lives. 
It is the prosecution version that the accused persons 
indiscriminately started firing which resulted in the death 
of the deceased persons. If PW 1 was driving the bullock 
cart, as claimed, it remains unexplained as to how he did 
E 
not suffer any injury while those sitting behind him in the 
bullock cart sustained serious injuries resulting in their 
· death. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High 
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant 
interference. [Para 8] [391-E, F] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 334 of 2002. · 
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2001 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal. No. 2309 
G 
of 1980. 
S.R. Singh, Sandeep Singh and Anil Kumar Jha for the 
Appellants. 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
S.K. Dubey, P.C. Agarwal, Dr. Sushi! Balwada and Yogesh 
.t 
Tiwari for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court 
directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged 
commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 
302 read with Section 149 IPC. 
). -· 
c 
2. The accused nos. 7 and 8 faced trial for offences 
punishable under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. 
It is to be noted that 8 persons faced trial and were convicted 
by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Jalaun. 
D 
3. During the pendency of the matter before the High Court 
three of them i.e. accused No.1, Jagmohan, accused No.2 
. Kishan Dutt and accused No.7 Ram Kumar have died and, 
~ .... 
therefore, the High Court noted that the appeals stood abated 
so far as they are concerned. During the pendency of the matter 
E 
before this Court, respondent No.3 Kanahai (A.5) has died. 
Hence, the appeal stands abated so far as respondent No.3 
is concerned. 
.,, 
4. In the present case, three persons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.