STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SHEW MANGAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 25-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
360 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
SHEW MANGAL SINGH & ORS. 
August 25, 1981 
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-Special Leave to appeal-Criminal 
Trial-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court-lnterfl!rence by 
Supreme Court-When arises. 
Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) S. 76-Scop• of-Command of 
superior officer to open/ire-Subordinate Officer in execution of command causes 
death-Subordinate Officer's belief that command was lawful-Enquiry into-When 
arises. 
Criminal Trial-Duty of Courts-To ensure that innocents are not comi'cted 
and guilty are not acquitted. 
The respondents were police officers. The prosecution alleged that when 
the deceased and his brother were sitting outside the house three police vehicles 
carrying the respondents and other police officers suddenly stopped in front of 
their house and that a police officer rushed towards them and when the deceased 
disclosed his identity the officer tired at point blank range. The shot having 
missed him, he rushed in the house. Pursuing him respondents 2 and 4 dragged 
E 
him out of the house, whereupon respondent 4 fired a shot at him. In the mean· 
while, the other brother, who was trying to get into the house was caught hold of 
by some of the respondents and respondent 1 fired at him. 
The two brothers were thereafter dumped into a police jeep, and the convoy 
of police officers departed from the scene of the occurrence. Both the brothers 
were taken to the hospital where the decased was declared dead on the spot and 
F 
his brother died, before any medical assistance could be given to him. 
G 
H 
The defence of the respondents was as follows : that while they were on 
patrol duty Jed by one of the officers, they were attacked by some pi~rsons, as a 
result of which respondent 1 was injured and was removed to the hospital. 
When 
fire was opened under orders of the officer the two deceased received injuries, and 
that respondents 1 and 2 were falsely implicated after an attempt to pressurise 
them into deposing against the officer had failed. 
Prosecution was initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 
third brother of the deceased implicating the respondents and two officers. No 
action was taken against the two officers for want of section 197 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. 
• 
While the trial judge convicted and sentenced the respondents, the High 
Court acquitted them. Before the High Court it was contended on behalf of the 
I 
j 
\ -
-
WEST BENGAL V, SHEW MANGAL 
361 
State that this was a case in which the protectors of law and order had become 
predators and in the circumstances the Court should not. illsist upon the same 
standard or proof as in other criminal cases, and as the witnesses were desposing 
nearly nine years after the date of the incident there was bound to be discrepan-
cies in their evidence. Taking note of the unsettled political conditio11s prevailing 
in Calcutta during the time, and on an analysis of the prosecL1tion evidence, the 
High Court found it' impossible to believe that the incident had happened in the 
manner alleged by the prosecution. Believing the defence version that there was 
mob violence which resulted in injuries to Respondent t and that in the circum-
stances the respondents were bound to obey the orders given by their officer, the 
High Court acquitted them. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the Stat~, 
HELD: I. If the order to open fire was justified as found by the High 
Court and is therefore lawful, no further question can arise whether the respond~ 
ents, who acted in obedience to that order, believed or did not believe it to be 
lawful. [365 F-G] 
In the instant case since the situation prevailing at the scene of the offence 
was such as to justify the order given by the officer to open fire, the respondents 
A 
B 
c 
could plead in defence that they acted in obedience to that order and therefore 
D 
they could not be held guilty of the offence of which they were charged. [366 CJ 
2. A miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no 
less than from the conviction of the innocent and that if unmerited acquittal 
become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law. Courts must 
take equal care to ensure that the innocent are not convicted and the guilty are 
not acquitted. [367 A-Bl 
E 
In the instant case, what the High Court has done is to acquit the in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.