1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.334 OF 2002

STATE OF U.P.                          Appellant (s)

                     VERSUS

MANGAL SINGH & ORS.                    Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

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.   

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.

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  before  this  Court,   respondent  No.3  Kanahai  (A.5)  has  died.

Hence, the appeal stands abated so far as respondent No.3 is concerned.    

In the present case, three persons lost their lives.  The occurrence

took place on 22.3.1979  and prosecution  version in  a  nutshell  is  that  the

2

deceased  and  PW.1  were  travelling  in  a  bullock  cart  while  PW.3  was

following them. The accused persons were holding several weapons and fired

gunshots at the deceased persons as a result of which they lost their lives.

PW.3 filed  FIR.  Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof,

charge sheet was filed and as the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held

and, as noted above, the trial court found them guilty and convicted them.  

In appeal, the High Court by the impugned Judgment has set aside

the  conviction.   The reasoning  indicated  by  the  High Court  for directing

acquittal is that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 do not inspire confidence.

On a reading of their evidence 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.  It was noticed that

the witnesses were shifting their version almost at every stage.   

It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-State that

minor variations and discrepancies in evidence of the eye witnesses have been

magnified by the High Court and it has directed acquittal in a case where

three members of a family were done to death.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported

the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court.   

We  find  that  the  High  Court  has  noted  various  factors  like

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 has noted several other

factors like PW.1 not sustaining any injury when persons sitting 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

3

death  of  the  deceased  persons.  If  PW.1  was  driving  the  bullock cart,  as

claimed, it remains 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.  In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High

Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.  The appeal

fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

........................J. (Dr. Arijit Pasayat)

........................J. (Asok Kumar Ganguly)

New Delhi; April 16, 2009.