Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOHAN SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided
30 July 1979
Judges listed
R.S. SARKARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 148 · 1979 INSC 134

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is div"cted against an order, dated March 28, 1979, whereby the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the· appellant's application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and r~fused to set aside an Order dated August 14, 1978 of the Sessions Judge framing a charge under Section 201, Penal Code against the appellant.

p. 149, margin B

The pros·"cution case as put in Court is that on March 4, 1978, one Padam Singh was shot dead at the farm of the appellant by the accused, Doongar Singh, in conspiracy with the accused, Hanif ahd Shambhoo Singh. Padam Singh's deadbody was first put in a jeep for removaL After going some distance the jeep went out of order. Thereafter, Doongar Singh brought the car of the appellant. The deadbody was then transhipped into the car (RJF 2118) and was taken to a distance and thrown into a lonely well on the boundary of village, Ramasani. Doongar Singh then brought the car back to Mohan Singh's bungalow where it was washed [ vide the Police report of A.S.P. City (West) Jodhpur]. It i~ not alleged that the appellant was in any manll'~r concerned as an abettor or accomplice in The murder or participated or abetted the removal and disposal of the deadbody of Padam Si'ngh. The only allegation on the basis of which a charge under Section 201, Indian Penal Code has been framed against the appellant is that on March 8, 1978, that is, five days ·after the murder of Padam Singh, he got his car washed at the Petrol Pump of one Umrao Khan. In this connection, the investigating Police Officer examined Sardar Kha'n sou of Umrao Khan, Petrol Pump dealer and his servant, Mangilal. There is nothing in their statements that there was any blood on the car which was washed. There was not an iota of material on the record to furnish basis even for a grave suspicion that by getting the car washed on the 8th March, 1978, the appellant caused any blood or other evidence concerning the murder of Padam Singh, to disappear. The pres·~nce of bloodstains on the car on the 8th March stood negatived by the prosecution's own assertion (in the police challan) that Doongar Singh had got the 1'lood on the car washed on th2 day of the murder, itself. The mere

p. 149, margin C

150 [ 1980 J 1 ,A washing of the car on the 8th March could not, by any stretch of imagination, be prima facie evidence of the factual ingredients of .. an offence under Section 201, Pe"nal Code. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge being based on no evidential material, whatever, was manifestly illegal. We, thernfore, allow this appeal, set aside the

p. 150

impugned Order and quash the charge framed against the appellant. ,ti S.R. Appeal allowed.

p. 150