Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 770 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Mangal Singh & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
State of Bihar
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2005
BENCH:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & B.P.SINGH
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 849-850/2005
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
Seven accused persons were found guilty by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Gaya, for the offence of murder punishable under Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC. Some of the accused were found guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. These accused
persons filed three criminal appeals before the High Court of Patna and by
the impugned judgment all the three criminal appeals were dismissed and
their conviction and sentence were confirmed.
The incident happened on 15.8.1996. PW 9 Suresh Singh along
with his brothers Dani Singh and PW 8 Mukhdeo Singh were carrying out
agricultural work in their paddy field. PW 1 Rajendra Munjhi, a labourer
too was working with them. One Kundan Kumar had brought the breakfast
for them. At about 11.00 a.m., a tractor came from the southern side and
stopped at a distance of 500 yards away from the field. Five to six persons
got down from the tractor and came near the field and one of them, Anil
Singh was armed with a gun. Some other persons came from the village
side and among them included the appellants, Mangal Singh, Kali Singh,
Sachitta Singh, Vidya Singh, Jai Ram Singh and Ramadhar Singh.
Jairam and Ramadhar were armed with gun and Sachitta Singh and Vidya
Singh were armed with countrymade pistol. The appellants then started
ploughing the field. PW-9 Suresh Singh and his brothers requested them
not to plough the field and there was exchange of words between PW-9
and his brothers on the one hand and appellants on the other, whereupon
appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh exhorted other appellants to kill
PW-9 Suresh Singh and his brothers. Appellant Anil Singh, Jai Ram
Singh and Ramadhar Singh started firing on them indiscriminately and
Kundan Singh and Dani Singh sustained injuries. PW 9 Suresh Singh and
his brother Mukhdeo Singh managed to run towards east and appellant
Sachitta Singh and Vidya Singh chased them but they escaped unhurt and
hid themselves in a nearby place. Hearing the sound of firing, the nearby
villagers came running towards the place of incident and the appellants
then fled towards west. PW9 Suresh Singh and his brother PW 8
Mukhdeo Singh came out and saw their brother Dani Singh lying dead
nearby in the field of Dr. Umesh Singh. Injured Kundan Singh was alive
but he was in an unconscious state. He was immediately removed to the
nearby hospital.
On the same day at about 2.00 p.m., the sub-Inspector of Police of
Buniyaadganj Police Station recorded the statement of PW-9 Suresh
Singh. A case was registered against the present appellants and the
inquest over the dead body of Dani Singh was held. Injured Kundan
Singh was admitted in the hospital but he later died in the hospital. On the
side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined. Five eye-witnesses
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
were examined to prove the incident. PW9 Suresh Singh is the main
witness to support the prosecution. He deposed that all the appellants
came to the place of incident and except Mangal Singh and Kali Singh, all
were armed with firearms and they started firing and he moved towards
Dr. Umesh Singh’s field. Appellants Sachitta Singh and Vidya Singh
chased him and when other witnesses came the accused ran away from
the field. He admitted that there was some land dispute between himself
and the appellants. The evidence of PW9 Suresh Singh would show that
the appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh had not done any overt acts.
He also does not speak about the exhortation allegedly made by
appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh. He deposed only to the fact that
appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh started abusing and said that
PW9 Suresh Singh and others shall not be left and be killed. PW-8
Mukhdeo Singh is another witness who was present at the place of the
incident. He would say that Kali Singh and Mangal Singh shouted that "not
to leave them and kill them".
The evidence of these two witnesses by itself would not prove the
real complicity of these two accused persons. Moreover, these two
persons were not armed with any weapons. We do not think that there
was any convincing evidence to prove that these two appellants also
shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
As regards the other appellants, there is evidence beyond
reasonable doubt that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly.
PW9 Suresh Singh and others deposed that after a wordy quarrel they
started using their fire arms to kill the two persons. They have been rightly
convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence of Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. The conviction of the appellants under Section 27 also
was fully justifiable and correct.
In the result, we find the appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh not
guilty of any offence punishable under law. They are acquitted of all the
charges framed against them. Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2004 is partly
allowed and the appeals filed by other appellants are dismissed.
Appellants Mangal Singh and Kali Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are
discharged.