Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Munnu Pandit @ Mahesh Kumar vs State Of U.P on 19 February, 2025
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.5031 OF 2023)
MUNNU PANDIT @ MAHESH KUMAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel
for the respondent/State.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal arises out of the order of affirmation by
the High Court to the conviction and sentence awarded to the
appellant along with three others for offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and sentence of life
imprisonment.
4. The genesis of the case is that the victim, a lady, in her
statement, alleged that she was burned by all the accused after
being called for talks, with a plastic piece placed in her mouth,
kerosene oil poured on her, and then set on fire.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially, when
the
Signature Not Verified
victim was taken to the hospital on 25.04.2010, the
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
investigating
Date: 2025.03.17
19:20:20 IST officer recorded her statement, in which she
Reason:
categorically mentioned the overt act of being burned by all the
1
accused, including the appellant. However, learned counsel contendsthat this statement, which was later treated as a dying declaration
after the victim’s death on 01.05.2010, does not carry any
endorsement by the Doctor regarding her medical condition or
whether she was in a position to depose. Further, it was submitted
that the statement itself records that she suffered 70 percent
burns.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the informant, who is the son
of the deceased and also PW1, did not mention that his mother named
the appellant, either in the complaint or in his deposition before
the Court. It was further submitted that while PW1 named the
appellant in the FIR, he did not mention him during his testimony
before the Court. Similarly, PW2 mentioned the appellant’s presence
in his examination-in-chief but contradicted himself in cross-
examination, stating that the appellant was not there. Furthermore,
PW2 initially stated that the victim named the appellant when she
was taken to the hospital, but later, in cross-examination, he
admitted that he did not accompany the victim to the hospital.
These inconsistencies, learned counsel argued, cast serious doubt
on the appellant’s involvement.
7. Another crucial aspect raised by learned counsel is that the
Doctor who could have provided vital insight regarding the victim’s
condition and statement was not examined. Additionally, a legal
infirmity was pointed out regarding the conviction i.e., while the
charges were initially framed under Section 302 read with Section
149 of the IPC, the conviction was under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC, which are substantially different, as
2
Section 149 of the IPC deals with common object, whereas Section 34
of the IPC pertains to common intent.
8. Learned counsel further argued that while the five other
accused had a property dispute with the deceased, the appellant had
no involvement. Additionally, on the day of the incident, the
appellant was attending an Akhand Path at the house of DW1, who
confirmed that he was present from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on that day and
he also remained consistent in his testimony during cross-
examination.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the
Courts had already considered whether the dying declaration
recorded by the Investigating Officer was admissible and found that
it was recorded in the natural course of events, reflecting the
truthfulness of the victim’s statement. The absence of a Doctor’s
endorsement, according to learned counsel for the State, would not
render the declaration inadmissible or cause miscarriage of
justice. It was further submitted that the witnesses consistently
stated that the appellant was present and as an active participant.
Regarding discrepancies in PW2’s testimony, he argued that the gap
of almost two years between his examination-in-chief and cross-
examination explains the inconsistencies, which should not nullify
his testimony.
10. Having considered the matter, we find that there are
sufficient circumstances to indicate that the presence of the
appellant at the scene of the crime is doubtful. Without relying
solely on the dying declaration, the inconsistencies in witness
testimonies regarding the appellant’s presence raise serious doubts
3
about his involvement. Additionally, the plea of alibi, supported
by DW1, has withstood cross-examination. Furthermore, the absence
of motive on the appellant’s part strengthens the case for granting
him the benefit of doubt.
11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds. The
appellant is acquitted of all charges and discharged from the
liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI
19th February,2025.
4
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.16 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5031/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-11-2022
in CRLA No.1993/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
MUNNU PANDIT @ MAHESH KUMAR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. RESPONDENT(S)
IA No. 20949/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 20948/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 19-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saurav Mandeir, Adv.
Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, which is
placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(D. NAVEEN) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
5
[ad_1]
Source link