Mohar vs State Of U. P. - 2002 Supreme(SC) 938

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(SC) 938

DORAISWAMY RAJU, H.K.SEMA
Mohar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 15th May, 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 and Government Appeal No. 2819 of 1979. Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 had been preferred by Baljore (the appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 787/2002), who was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by an order dated 1st May, 1979 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 533 of 1977. Government Appeal No. 2819 of 1979 had been preferred by the State of U.P. against the acquittal judgment by the Trial Court acquitting Mohar, Tikori and Tapsi (Mohar and Tikori are appellants before us in Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2000) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. By the impugned judgment the High Court, after examining the evidence on record, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 1979 preferred by Baljore and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 instead of Section 302 IPC simpliciter, as recorded by the Trial Court. The High Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

All cases in the list (IDs: 02500043179, 02500001938, 01702004042, 01700004299, 02700014308, 02100040942, 00500022413, 00100048878, 01100037639, 01500034716, 00800039370, 01100041182, 00200047917, 01100050024, 01300024470, 00400053758, 00800043419, 02500085675, 01700053680, 01700051533, 01000006307, 00400054845, 01300026237, 02500100422, 02500090361, 01700053506, 00800044920, 00800044901, 00200049181, 00800045185, 02500100037, 02000024317, 01000007362, 00400060028, 02500105327, 02500105519, 02500105543, 02500105424, 02500105846, 01300029879, 01300033070, 02500106538, 00200050738, 01500048651, 00400063388, 01100067011, 02100137400, 02500109746, 02500109757, 02500108292, 02500109810, 02500118516, 02200036655, 02200037033, 02200037027, 02200037017, 01100073960, 02700047444, 01100073951, 02500111269, 02200036787, 01400034287, 00800055980, 02500150554, 02200037443) fall into this category.

**Explanation**: Every snippet cites "Mohar" (e.g., "Mohar v. State of U.P.", "Mohar Singh v. State of U.", "Mohar and Anr. v. State of U.P.", or similar variants) alongside other cases in a manner indicating approval or reliance. Common patterns include:

Listing with other precedents in sequences like "State of Maharashtra... Bhag Singh... Mohar v. State of U.P." (e.g., 00500022413, 00100048878, 01500034716), suggesting parallel valid authority.

Prefacing with "As held by Apex Court in the case of" (e.g., 02500043179, 02500001938), indicating authoritative holding.

Neutral or positive contextual use, such as explaining witness testimony efficacy ("THE testimony of Raja Bhaiya... has its own efficacy... (Mohar..." in 02700014308) or presence at scene ("Observing that the fact that the witness sustained injuries shows presence... in Mohar v...." in 02100040942).

Frequent citation with SCC references like "(1997) 7 SCC 712" (e.g., 00200047917, 00400054845), treated as binding Supreme Court precedent.

No countervailing language; even in longer contexts (e.g., 00800045185 discussing non-explanation of injuries, or 02700047444 listing appeals), "Mohar" is invoked supportively without disapproval.

This uniform pattern across 58 cases shows "Mohar" is consistently followed or cited approvingly as good law, often on topics like injured witness credibility, right to private defence, or injury explanations in criminal cases.

**Source :** [Moti Lal

VS State of Uttar Pradesh

2002 Supreme(SC) 938

DORAISWAMY RAJU, H.K.SEMAMohar – AppellantVersusState Of U. P. – Respondent

Judicial Analysis

DORAISWAMY RAJU, H.K.SEMA
Mohar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent