Masalti: Munga Ram, Bhagwati, Chandan Sinali, Laxmi Prasad vs State Of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1964 Supreme(SC) 164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
1. Masalti (in Cr. A. No. 30 of 1964)
2. Munga Ram and others (In Cr. A. No. 31 of 1964)
3. Bhagwati and others (In Cr. A. No. 32 of 1964)
4. Chandan Singh and others (In Cr. A. No. 33 of 1964)
5. Laxmi Prasad (In Cr. A. No. 34 of 1964) Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. (In all the Appeals), Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 30 to 34 of 1964. 203
Advocates Appeared
Mr. M.S. K. Sastri, Advocate, (at State Expense), for Appellant (In Cr. A. No. 30 of 1964); M/s. I. M. Lall and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, for Appellants (In Cr. A. No. 31 of 1964); Mr. V. S. Sawhney, Advocate for Appellants (In Cr. A. Nos. 32 to 34 of1964); M/s. O. P. Rana, Atiqur Rehman and C, P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondent (In all the Appeals.)

Advocates:
Atiqur Rehman, C.P.LAL, GANPAT RAI, I.M.LAL, M.S.K.Shastri, O.P.RANA, V.S.Sawhney

Judgement Key Points

Facts

Forty persons, including the appellants, were charged with multiple offenses, primarily murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, arising from an incident on 29 November 1961 at around 8 a.m. in village Bilati Khet, Jhansi district, amid longstanding factional rivalry between groups led by Gayadin (victim) and Laxmi Prasad (appellant and Pradhan). A boundary dispute on 28 November escalated when Laxmi Prasad, after being injured by Bahoran (Gayadin's son), gathered an armed crowd (with guns, spears, swords, gandasa, lathis) and attacked Gayadin's house. They killed Gayadin, his sons Brindaban, Radha Saran, Dayaram, and Shiroman Singh by shooting; dragged the bodies to a field, piled them with cowdung cakes, sprinkled kerosene, and set them ablaze. Bahoran lodged FIR naming 35 (later 40) assailants. Trial court convicted 35, sentencing 10 to death and 25 to life imprisonment; acquitted 5. High Court acquitted 7 more, confirmed convictions/sentences for 28 (including death for 10 gun-wielders), applying a test of consistent testimony from at least 4 witnesses out of 12 eyewitnesses (mostly from victims' faction; evidence of 2 rejected). Supreme Court heard appeals by 16 accused. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Ratio

In murder trials involving death sentences, appellate courts must cautiously scrutinize all arguments, evidence infirmities, and circumstances before confirming conviction or sentence. (!)

Failure to examine certain listed witnesses (e.g., won over or mentally shocked) is not fatal if prosecution acts bona fide, their evidence is not essential for just decision (assessed from prior statements), defense could examine them, and court declines to summon under Section 540 CrPC after deliberation; no prejudice presumed. (!) (!) (!)

Partisan/interested witness testimony (common in factional village murders) cannot be mechanically discarded but must be carefully weighed for discrepancies, genuineness, and probability; mechanical rejection leads to failure of justice. (!)

In unlawful assembly cases with common murderous object, witnesses need not specify each member's overt act (especially in crowd assaults where not all weapons used); conviction sustainable if assembly's formation, arming, and object proved. (!) (!)

In multi-offender/multi-victim cases, convicting based on consistent testimony from 2-4+ witnesses (a "mechanical" numerical test) is reasonable/safe, prioritizing quality but aided by quantity for reliability; acquittal of fewer-supported accused permissible. (!)

Under Section 302/149 IPC, members of unlawful assembly with common object to exterminate victims are equally guilty of murder even without personal killing; death sentence justifiable for armed (e.g., gun-carrying) participants, not mechanically limited to direct killers. (!) (!)

Supreme Court may modify death to life imprisonment for young members (e.g., 18-24 years) likely joining under family elder pressure in factional assemblies. (!)

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :Forty persons were charged with having committed several offences the principal one of which was under section 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against these persons was tried by the first Additional Sessions Judge at Jhansi. The other charges framed against them were under S.307/149, 201/149 and 511, 395, 396, 149 and 449, I.P.C. The learned trial Judge held that none of the charges had been proved against five of the accused persons. He also found that the charges under Sections 395 and 396 were not proved against any of them. In regard to the remaining charges, he found that 35 out of 40 accused persons were guilty. For the major offence charged under S.302/149, he sentenced 10 accused persons to death and 25 others to imprisonment for life. He also directed that the said accused persons should undergo different terms of imprisonment for the remaining offences; but for the purpose of the present appeals, it is unnecessary to refer them.

2. After the learned trial Judge pronounced his judgment on the 31st December, 1962, the 35 accused persons who had been convicted by him preferred three appeals between them before the Allahabad High Court, whereas the sentences of death imposed on 10 accused persons by the learned trial Judge were submitted to the said High Court for confirmation. The High Court has held that 7 out of the 35 appellants before it were not proved to have committed any of the offences, and so, they were ordered to be acquitted. In regard to the remaining 28 appellants, the High Court has confirmed the orders of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court. In the result, the reference made to the High Court for confirmation of the sentences of death imposed on the 10 accused persons by the trial Court was allowed. It is against this decision of the High Court that the present five appeals have been brought to this Court by special leave, and the number of accused persons who have brought these appeals before us is 16.

3. Before dealing with the points raised in these appeals, it is necessary to set out very briefly the relevant facts on which the prosecution case against the appellants and their co-accused substantially rests. The incident which has given rise to the present criminal proceedings took place on the 29th November, 1961 in village Bilati Khet in the district of Jhansi at about 8 a.m. It is clear that this village is cursed with keen rivalry and enmity between two factions. One group was led by Gayadin who and four other members of his family were murdered on the said date. All these murders were committed according to the prosecution, by the members of the rival faction amongst whom are included the present appellants before us. Criminal proceedings have continued between the parties for several years almost without interruption. The rival group was led by Laxmi Prasad alias Laxmi Narain who is one of the appellants in this Court. In the last election of the village Panchayat Laxmi Prasad succeeded as Pradhan of the village and defeated the candidate set up by Gayadin. On the 28th November, 1961, a boundary dispute led to an incident between the members of the two groups. This dispute related to two fields one of which belonged to Gayadin and the other to Laxmi Prasad. Attempts were made to settle this dispute by arbitration, but they failed. It appears that Laxmi Prasad and the members of his group did not agree to submit to any arbitration and they left the meeting called for the purpose threatening that they would see that the matter in dispute between them was settled the next day. It is on this grim note that the incident of the 28th November ended.

4. On the 29th November in the early morning, Bahoran, one of the sons of Gayadin, had gone out to ease himself. He was then carrying a pharasa. In the field he met Laxmi Prasad who attacked him with a lathi. Bahoran retaliated this attack with his own pharasa and in the scuffle th