Supreme Court of India
PRAMOD KUMAR MANTRI AND ANR. versus STATE OF ORISSA
- Decided
- 27 January 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 1 S.C.R. 567 · 1997 INSC 64
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.
Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
p. 567, margin F
By order dated November 8, 1996 the petition was dismissed as against the first petitioner, Bhikari Behera and notice was ordered in respect of the remaining two petitioners, namely; Pramod Kumar Mantri, Bhagirathi Rout. The case of the prosecution is that on May 28, 1988 at about 10.00 a.m., all the three accused armed with Thengas entered into the house of deceased Bauribandhu. A-1 had hit him on the head twice and threw him down. Thereafter, the three accused had dragged the deceased outside the house, when wife and son of the deceased raised alarm, they ran away from the place, FIR was lodged at about 11.30 A.M. and thereafter investigation was conducted. The appellants and two others have been charged under Section 302 read with under Section 149 I.P.C. The Courts below convicted the appellants for an offence pun.ishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. As regards the assault by the appellants, there is no corroborating evidence by the doctor as to dragging of the deceased by the accused. Even the evidence of the eye-witnesses is discrepant on material particulars. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were standing behind PW -2. If really all the three accused had entered into the house all of them would have attacked the deceased. That is no the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared the common intention with A-1 to kill the deceased. Even the evidence of PW -1 that they entered the house and dragged the deceased is not reliable since the admission in the cross-examination is that there was no blood stain outside the house. Had the dragging really been there, there would be trail of blood.
pp. 567–568, margin G
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 for an offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC stand set aside. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 568, margin E