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

STATE OF U. P. versus MANGAL SINGH & ORS.

Decided
16 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 388 · 2009 INSC 540
Also cited as
  • (2009) 12 SCC 306 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Challenge in this appeal is 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. -·

p. 390

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.

p. 390

3

During the pendency of the matter before the High Court 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. Hence, the appeal stands abated so far as respondent No.3 is concerned. .,,

p. 390

4

In the present case, three persons lost their lives. The occurrence took place on 22.3.1979 and prosecution version .. 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 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.

p. 390

5

In appeal, the High Court by the impugned Judgment has set aside the conviction. The reasoning indicated by the High Court for directing acquittal is that the evidence and PW.3 do not inspire confidence. On a reading evidence it is clear that they could not have witnessed occurrence as claimed and they also changed the occurrence and the manner in which the alleged occurrence took place. It was noticed that the witnesses were shifting version almost at every stage .

pp. 390–391, margin F

6

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

p. 391, margin B

7

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

p. 391, margin C