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

2012 Supreme(SC) 485

Supreme Court of India
AFTAB ALAM & H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
Manjit Singh & Others
Versus
State of Rajasthan
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.269 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF 2008
Decided On : 25-07-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
Omission of a fact in FIR - not fatal.
Motive - not relevant in view of reliable ocular evidence.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial - Conviction - Omission in FIR - Explained satisfactorily - Not fatal. (Paras 13 and 14)

        (b) Criminal Trial - Conviction - Motive - Not of much relevance where ocular evidence is reliable. (Para 15)

       Facts of the case:

        This is a case relating to conviction under section 302 and 307 r/w 34, IPC

       Finding of the Court:

        No interference is required.

       Result : Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence.

       

Judgment :-

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No.269 of 2008 is on behalf of a single appellant – Manjit Singh. Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2008 (that came to this Court from jail) is on behalf of two appellants, namely, Kamlesh Kumar and Pradhuman Singh @ Paddu who are represented by Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, advocate, nominated as Amicus Curiae. Both the appeals arise from the same judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. All the three appellants stand convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. For the offence of murder they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each with the default sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment. For the offence of attempt to murder, they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each with the default sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment for the two offences, however, have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement (Parcha Bayan) of Hitesh Galav recorded by ASI Champa Lal at Hospital Baran on September 14, 1998 at 11:30 p.m. The Parcha Bayan – Exhibit P.4 gave rise to and it was incorporated in the formal FIR No.211/98, Police Station Mangrol. In his statement before the Police, Hitesh Galav said that on that day at about 9.00 in the evening he along with Hemant (deceased), Madhusudan (deceased) and Maharaj was sitting in the Hanumanji Mandir near the Mangrol bus stand. At that time Manjit Singh Rajput, Kamlesh Sharma and Paddu Sardar (the three appellants) came there and with a view to kill them on account of previous enmity attacked them with knives. The three accused gave them repeated knife blows as a result of which the three of them were wounded. He further said that he had received one knife injury on the right side of his abdomen and another injury on the right side under the arm. One of them (the accused) also made the exhortation to take out the revolver but at the same time Hariom Soni and some other people arrived there. Parvat Singh also came there who lifted them and brought them straight to Mangrol Hospital from where they came to Baran. He further said that he had received injuries on both his hands as well.

4. The FIR was initially recorded under Section 307/34 but on the death of Hemant and Madhusudan, Section 302 of the Penal Code was also added to the case. On submission of charge sheet by the police, the appellants were tried before the Sessions Judge, Baran, who by his judgment and order dated September 15, 1999 passed in Sessions Case No.132/1998 convicted and sentenced them, as noted above. The appellants preferred Appeals [D.B. Criminal Appeal No.640/1999 (Kamlesh Kumar),

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.796/1999 (Manjit Singh) and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.764/1999 (Pradhuman Singh @ Paddu)] before the High Court of Rajasthan which were dismissed by the High Court by judgment and order dated January 13, 2006.

5. These two appeals arise from the judgment of the High Court.

6. It will be useful to note, at the outset, the injuries found on the person of Hemant and Madhusudan in their respective post-mortem reports (Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 26 respectively).

7. Hemant had the following injuries on his person:

1. Stab wound just right to mid line chest at 4th inter costal space elliptical 3x1 cm. deep to chest cavity.

2. Two stab wounds one on ant. & one on post aspect of left shoulder 2x1x1cm.

3. Incised wound 5x2x½ cm. dorsum of left hand on 3rd & 4th inter metacarpal space.

4. Stab wound 3x1x1cm. left thigh lower and other part.

5. Incised wound 3x1x¼ cm. below left ear.

8. Madhusudan had the following injuries on his person:

1. Stab wound 4x2cm. x deep to chest cavity, trans, elliptical, direction medially & upwards on left side of left chest wall 3” lat. to breast nipple.

2. Two














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