SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 356

2009(2) Supreme 175
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Mahendra Pratap Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2006
Decided on : 24-02-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Sushil Kuma, J.C. Gupta, Rajesh, Dharam Singh, Aditya Kumar, Anmol Thakral, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ratnakar Dash, Fuzail Khan, Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Discrepancies in the evidence, if material, cannot be discarded or ignored.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – If two views are possible, one as held by the trial court for acquitting the accused and the other for convicting the accused, in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. (Para 12)

       (1988) 2 SCC 557; (1979) 2 SCR 94: (1978) 4 SCC 371: AIR 1979 SC 135; AIR 1934 PC 227; (1950) SCR 821: AIR 1953 SC 415; (1978) 4 SCC 161; (1975) 4 SCC 497; (2008) 3 SCC 795 – Relied upon.

       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Minor discrepancies or variance in evidence does not make the prosecution case doubtful – In such circumstances Courts should adopt a rational approach – Hyper technicalities and figments of imagination should not prevent sifting and weighing of evidence. (Para 12)

       JT 1994 (6) SC 502; (1983) 3 SCC 217; (1988) Cr L. J. 1477; (2000) 1 SCC 247 – Relied upon.

       (c)Arms Act – Sections 25 and 27 – Appellant charged and tried u/s 27 and convicted u/s 25 – Not permissible. (Para 26)

       (d)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – High Court dismissing the discrepancies in evidence as minor whereas these were found to be material and vital – High Court also ignoring dying declarations as not correctly recorded – Judgment based on surmises – Not sustainable. (Para 27)

       Facts of the case :

       1. On 12.02.1975 at about 1.00 P.M. at the bus stand Lalitpur there was an altercation between the appellant and the PW-4 and PW-9. Appellant fired from his rifle injuring four persons.

       2.PW-9 Prahlad Babu and Devendra Singh were taken to the Medical College, Jhansi, but on the way Devendra Singh died. PW Prahlad Babu remained indoor patient in the Medical College for more than three weeks.

       3.The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant not guilty of the charges under Section 304 Part-II, 307 and 324 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and accordingly acquitted him.

       4.The High Court allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty of the charged offences.

       Finding of the Court :

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —

1. This appeal is filed by Mahendra Pratap Singh- appellant herein under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 against the final judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Appeal No. 142 of 1981. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal dated 09.10.1980 of the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi, in Sessions Trial No. A-135 of 1975 under Section 304 Part-II, under Section 307 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the “IPC”) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and as a result thereof he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304 Part-II, 7 years R.I. under Section 307 IPC, 6 months R.I. under Section 324 IPC and 2 years R.I. under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2.1] The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellant occurred on 12.02.1975 at about 1.00 P.M. at bus stand Lalitpur. According to the prosecution case, on the day of the incident one passenger Bus No. MPR 5393 on its route from Madanpur to Jhansi was stopped by its driver Sukhnandan (CW-3) at bus stand Lalitpur. The departure time of the said bus from the bus stand Lalitpur was 1.00 P.M., but it remained parked till 1.10 P.M. beyond schedule time fixed by the Road Transport Authority. One more Bus No. USG 5519 came from Jammi Dem and reached bus stand Lalitpur at about 1.15 P.M. as per schedule time which was to proceed from Lalitpur bus stand at 1.20 P.M. for Jhansi. Matin Khan (PW-8) driver of Bus No. USG 5519 stopped the vehicle at bus stand Lalitpur at 1.00 P.M. Laxman Dass (PW-4) and his brother Prahlad Babu (PW-9) the owners of the said bus reached at bus stand Lalitpur for settlement of fare accounts with PW-8 Matin Khan-Driver. They noticed some passengers boarding Bus No. MPR 5393 in place of their bus. They asked Sukhnandan (CW-3) driver of Bus No. MPR 5393, to drive his vehicle out of the parking place in order to provide halting place for their bus. The appellant allegedly was standing behind the bus armed with a rifle and was supervising his luggage being unloaded by the conductor from the bus-roof top. PW Prahlad Babu told the appellant that he would lose his passengers and the appellant could get the luggage unloaded after the bus moved ahead of the halting place. On this, the appellant allegedly threatened to shoot PW Prahlad Babu with his rifle if such request would be repeated. PW Prahlad Babu retorted saying that like the appellant, he has seen many shooters in his lifetime. The case of the prosecution further was that the appellant raised his rifle and fired single bullet shot causing injuries to four persons, namely, PW Prahlad Babu, Dhanna Lal (CW-1), Ram Ratan Joshi (CW-2) and Devendra Singh (Deceased) who allegedly were all standing behind PW Prahlad Babu. The appellant tried to re-load the rifle, but was over-powered by the passengers present at the place of occurrence. In the melee, someone hurled a stone which hurt the head of PW Laxman Dass.

2.2] The prosecution proceeded to allege that PW Laxman Dass handed over the appellant on spot to the custody of PW Matin Khan, Vimal Kumar Tewari (PW-10) and Shikhar Chand Naik (PW-13), etc. asking them to wait at the spot till his return. PW Laxman Dass carried injured PW Prahlad Babu, CW-1 Dhanna Lal and Devendra Singh on a Thela to the adjoining District Hospital at Lalitpur. CW-2 injured Ram Ratan Joshi walked himself to the hospital. Dr. S.P. Singh (PW-3) who medically examined the injured persons between 2.00 P.M. and 3.15 P.M. requested Shri B.D. Sharma (PW-19) Sub- Divisional Magistrate of District - Lalitpur to reach at the hospital where PW-19 recorded the statements of the injured. PW Vimal Kumar Tiwari left the place of occurrence and went to the hospital to take PW Laxman Dass with him to the police station. PW Vimal Kumar Tiwari recorded the stat

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top