Holding

The High Court’s acquittal was justified; the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The State alleged that three members of a family were killed when the accused fired gunshots at them while they were traveling in a bullock‑cart. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted them, holding that the eye‑witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑3) could not have actually seen the incident, had altered their version of the place and manner of occurrence, and that PW‑1, who was driving the cart, sustained no injury despite others being shot, raising doubts about the prosecution’s version. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court exaggerated minor inconsistencies. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, finding the inconsistencies sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution’s case and concluding that there was no infirmity warranting interference, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under Sections 148 and 302 r/w Section 149 IPC can be sustained when the eye‑witness testimony is unreliable and inconsistent.
Whether the inconsistencies and changes in the witnesses' statements justify setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused.
Whether the fact that the driver (PW‑1) was uninjured while others were shot creates a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version of events.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

IPCmurderculpable homicide not amounting to murderunlawful assemblyeye‑witness testimonyconviction set asideacquittalcriminal appeal

Judgment

A
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 388

•
STATE OF U. P.
.. -
v.
MANGAL SINGH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2002)

APRIL 16, 200J
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.] >-

Penal Code, 1860.- ss. 302 rlw 149 and 148 - Three
c members of a family done to death - Death caused due to
gun-shot injuries - At the relevant time, deceased and PW1
were travelling in a bullock-cart - Trial Court convicted the
accused-respondents - Conviction set aside by High Court
on the premise that the evidence of PWs did not inspire
D confidence -: Justification of - Held: On facts, justified - From _, ..._
evidence of PWs, it is clear that they could not have witnessed
the occurrence as claimed and they also changed the place
of occurrence and the manner in which the alleged
occurrence took place - The witnesses were shifting their
E version almost at every stage - Veracity of the prosecution
version was doubtful - If PW 1 was driving the bullock cart,
as claimed, it remained unexplained as to how he did not
suffer any injury while those sitting behind him in the bullock-
lo' -
cart sustained serious injuries resulting in their death -
Judgment of High does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
F
interference.

According to the prosecution, three members of a
family were done to death by the accused-respondents.
..
The respondents allegedly fired gun-shots at the
G deceased while they alongwith PW1 were travelling in a
bullock-cart. The trial court convicted the respondents
j,.
"
under ss.148 and 302 r/w s.149 IPC. Olil appeal, the High
Court set aside the conviction on the premise that the
evidence of PWs1 and 3 did not inspire confidence.
H 388
STATE OF U. P. v. MANGAL SINGH & ORS. 389

Hence the present appeal. A

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, it is clear
that they could not have witnessed the occurrence as
8
claimed and they also changed the place of occurrence
and the manner in which the alleged occurrence took
place. The witnesses were shifting their version almost
at every stage. [Para 5] [391-A, B]

2. The High Court noted various factors like C
changing the place of occurrence and the manner in
which the alleged occurrence took place. This itself was
sufficient to doubt the veracity of the prosecution version.
In addition, the High Court noted several other factors
like PW1 not sustaining any injury when persons sitting D
behind him received gun shot injuries and lost their lives.
It is the prosecution version that the accused persons
indiscriminately started firing which resulted in the death
of the deceased persons. If PW 1 was driving the bullock
cart, as claimed, it remains unexplained as to how he did E
not suffer any injury while those sitting behind him in the
bullock cart sustained serious injuries resulting in their
· death. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
interference. [Para 8] [391-E, F] F

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 334 of 2002. ·

From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2001 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal. No. 2309 G
of 1980.

S.R. Singh, Sandeep Singh and Anil Kumar Jha for the
Appellants.
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A S.K. Dubey, P.C. Agarwal, Dr. Sushi! Balwada and Yogesh .t
Tiwari for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
B to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and
302 read with Section 149 IPC. ). -·
c 2. The accused nos. 7 and 8 faced trial for offences
punishable under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
It is to be noted that 8 persons faced trial and were convicted
by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Jalaun.

3. During the pendency of the matter before the High Court
D three of them i.e. accused No.1, Jagmohan, accused No.2
. Kishan Dutt and accused No.7 Ram Kumar have died and, ~ ....
therefore, the High Court noted that the appeals stood abated
so far as they are concerned. During the pendency of the matter
before this Court, respondent No.3 Kanahai (A.5) has died.
E Hence, the appeal stands abated so far as respondent No.3
is concerned. .,,
4. In the present case, three persons lost their lives. The
occurrence took place on 22.3.1979 and prosecution version
F in a nutshell is that the deceased and PW.1 were travelling in
)' ..
a bullock cart while PW.3 was following them. The accused
persons were holding several weapons and fired gunshots at
the deceased persons as a result of which they lost their lives.
PW.3 filed FIR. Investigation was undertaken and on completion
G thereof, charge sheet was filed and as the accused pleaded
innocence, trial was held and, as noted above, the trial court ). ~
found them guilty and convicted them.

5. In appeal, the High Court by the impugned Judgment
has set aside the conviction. The reasoning indicated by the
H
-;

llt
STATE OF U. P. v. MANGAL SINGH & ORS. 391
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-;
A
High Court for directing acquittal is that the evidence of PW.1
and PW.3 do not inspire confidence. On a reading of their
evidence it is clear that they could not have witnessed the
occurrence as claimed and they also changed the place of
occurrence and the manner in which the alleged occurrence
took place. It was noticed that the witnesses were shifting their B
version almost at every stage .
.~

~ 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-
State that minor variations and discrep~ncies in evidence of
the eye witnesses have been magnified by the High Court and c
it has directed acquittal in a case where three members of a
family were done to death.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court.
D
_, r 8~ We find that the High Court has noted various factors
like changing the place of occurrence and the manner in which
the alleged occurrence took place. This itself was sufficient to
doubt the veracity of the prosecution version. In addition, the
High Court has noted several other factors like PW.1 not E
sustaining any injury when persons sitting behind him received
gun shot injuries and lost their lives. It is the prosecution version
that the accused persons indiscriminately started firing which
~ '1 resulted in the death of the deceased persons. If PW.1 was
driving the bullock cart, as claimed, it remains unexplained as F
to how he did not suffer any injury while those sitting behind him
in the bullock cart sustained serious injuries resulting in their
death. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court
does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The
appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. G
,,. ..\
B.B.B. ·Appeal dismissed.