[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohar Singh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.12571/2022]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH APPELLANT
VERSUS
MOHAR SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has arisen out of judgment dated
08.04.2022 passed by High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by
respondent nos.1 to 4 was allowed, setting aside their
conviction as recorded by the Trial Court, under Sections
302, 395, 397 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short, the “IPC”). They have been consequently acquitted
of the charges.
3. The occurrence in the instant case took place on
16.05.1980 at about 9 p.m. According to the informant
(PW-1), who is the brother of the deceased (Ram Singh),
Signature Not Verified
he, along with the deceased and their nephew Ranbir Singh
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.08.12
11:31:11 IST (PW-4), were at their shop. Informant heard some shrieks,
Reason:
and he, along with his brother Dhan Singh (PW-2), went to
1
the spot. They saw that Ram Singh and Ranbir Singh were
being assaulted by 10-12 persons with guns and pistols.
When the informant party challenged the assailants, one
of the miscreants assaulted Ranbir Singh (PW-4) with a
gun, and another person shot Ram Singh and also aimed at
the informant. The miscreants thereafter looted the house
of the informant, as also the houses of other people in
the village and thereafter ran away. The informant
further informed that amongst 12 persons, who committed
dacoity, he, along with his brother, could identify 8
fellow villagers, namely, Gajram, Prem, Mohar Singh,
Ramesh, Banwari, Bhagwan Singh, Rajendra and Rajpal.
4. FIR was accordingly registered under Sections 395,
397 and 307 of IPC at Police Station Badaun. One of the
injured persons, Ram Singh, succumbed to the injuries
after approximately 20 days of the occurrence, and thus,
Section 302 of the IPC was also added.
5. It appears that the defence plea taken by the
accused persons was that they were falsely implicated
because there existed family enmity between the groups,
and a few months before the alleged dacoity, the
informant was implicated in the murder of the father of
respondent nos.2 and 3.
6. The Trial Court rejected the defence plea,
convicted all the accused persons, as noticed earlier and
sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, noting that
2
the FIR was filed promptly, a number of witnesses,
including the injured witness, identified the accused
persons.
7. The aggrieved accused persons preferred an appeal
before the High Court. It may be noticed that one of the
accused, Gajram died during pendency of the trial. Three
more accused persons, namely, Ramesh, Prem and Banwari,
died during the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court.
8. The High Court, thereafter, vide impugned judgment
dated 08.04.2022, has acquitted the respondents,
extending them the benefit of doubt. The High Court,
though has agreed with the Trial Court that dacoity took
place in the village on that fateful night, but has
further held that the prosecution failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons
(appellants before the High Court) were part of the gang
of dacoits, who committed the dacoity. The High Court
rather strongly suspected that the informant had taken
the commission of dacoity in the village as an
opportunity to falsely implicate the persons with whom he
had enmity. It was observed that the prosecution failed
to produce non-inimical victims of the dacoity; there was
no recovery of any incriminating material from the
accused-appellants and the only independent witness of
fact, namely, PW-3 did not depose with regard to the
3
involvement of the accused, who were appellants before
the High Court. Even the other prosecution witnesses of
the fact were found to have not demonstrated beyond
reasonable doubt that the respondents-accused were part
of the gang of the dacoits.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and the record is perused.
10. It is pointed out that during the pendency of this
appeal, Mohar Singh – respondent no.1 has also passed
away. As regard to respondent nos.2 to 4, it is pointed
out by their counsel that they are senior citizens more
than 80 years old, though there is no definite
information on record.
11. Be that as it may, we have evaluated the reasons
assigned by the High Court while extending the benefit of
doubt to the respondents. We find that the reasons
assigned by the High Court are plausible, based upon
correct appreciation of the evidence on record and such
reasons are one of the possible view. It is not a case of
either misreading the evidence on record or of returning
any perverse finding. That being so, we are conscious of
the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction. All that we wish to observe
is that even if a second view is possible, that will not
be a just ground to reverse the findings returned by the
High Court.
4
12. For the reasons aforestated, we see no merit in
this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
……………………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
August 06, 2025
5
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.2 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).12571/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-04-2022
in CRLA No.1826/1983 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MOHAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 184391/2022 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 06-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Preeti Goel, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR
Mr. Mrigank Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Gouri Karuna Mohanti, Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR
Mr. Ali Jethmalani, Adv.
Ms. Sanjana Wason, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2 The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
6
[ad_2]
Source link