{"id":177635,"date":"1997-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997"},"modified":"2018-05-31T04:18:41","modified_gmt":"2018-05-30T22:48:41","slug":"surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997","title":{"rendered":"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997<\/div>\n
Bench: M.M. Punchhi, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSURENDRA NARAIN @ MUNNA PANDEY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/11\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nM.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Punchhi
\n\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan
\nArvind Kumar)  Adv (Ms. Manisha Bhardwaj) Adv. for Ms. Laxmi
\nArvind, Advs for the appellant
\nVishwajit  Singh,   Adv.  for\tA.S.Pundir,  Adv.   for\t the
\nRespondent
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nSRINIVASAN.J
\n     This appeal  by special  leave is\tdirected against the
\njudgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the order
\nof conviction  passed by  the III Additional Sessions Judge,
\nKanpur n  a charge  under Section  302\tI.P.C.\tagainst\t the
\nappellant and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The case of the prosecution was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     On April  7, 1977\tat about  3.30 P.M. the victim Shree
\nPrakash was  gong in  rickshaw with  is servant\t Nanhu Singh
\n(PW-3) followed\t by Balkrishan\tBajpai (PW-1) and (PW -2) in
\nanother rickshaw  in the  crossing of  Alumandi, Cooperganj,
\nKanpur within  the area of the police station Anwar ganj. At
\nthat time  the appellant  arrived at the spot sitting on the
\npillon of  a motor  cycle driven by another person, shot the
\nvictim with  a pistol and sped away. The witnesses proceeded
\nto the\tpolice station\twhich was  very near  the  place  of
\noccurrence and lodged  a complaint around 3.45 PM The victim
\nwas taken  to the hospital where he was declared dead. While
\nPW 1 stayed at the police station for giving a statement, PW
\n2 went\tto inform  the sister of the victim. The name of the
\nappellant was  mentioned by  PW 1  in the  FIR who could not
\nhowever give  the name\tof the\tperson who  was driving\t the
\nmotor-cycle though  he claimed that he could identify him on
\nseeing his  face. The  appellant could not be traced till he
\nsurrendered in Court on 13.5.1977\n<\/p>\n
3.   On that  date itself the appellant moved an application
\nbefore the  C.M.M.Kanpur claiming  that witnesses  were\t not
\nknown to  him and  that\t a test identification parade should
\nbe ordered.  The C.M.M.\t dismissed it on the ground that the
\noffence being  one exclusively triable by Court of Sessions,
\nhe could  not pass orders thereon. That order was challenged
\nin the\tCourt of  Session, Kanpur.  The latter\tallowed\t the
\nprayer by  order dated 14.6.77 and directed the appellant to
\nbe up  for identification. But the identification parade was
\nnot held.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The trial\twent on and the prosecution examined as many
\nas  nine  witnesses,  including\t three\teye  witnesses.\t The
\naccused\t while\tputting\t forward  a  case  of  total  denial
\nexamined three\twitnesses. The trial judge accepted the case
\nof the\tprosecution and\t found the  accused guilty of murder
\npunishable under  Section 302  I.P.C. On  appeal,  the\tHigh
\nCourt confirmed the same.\n<\/p>\n
5.   In\t this\tappeal,\t learned   counsel  has\t urged\tfive
\ncontentions –  (1) The\tfailure of  the police to put up the
\nappellant for  identification parade  inspite of an order of
\nthe Court  of Sessions\tis fatal to the prosecution inasmuch
\nas the appellant has challenged the claim of PWs 1 to 3 that
\nthey knew  his\talready.  (2)  The  non-examination  of\t the
\nrickshaw pullers  is a vital factor omitted to be considered
\nby courts below; (3) The evidence of PW3 runs counter to the
\nmedical evidence  and  deserves\t to  be\t rejected;  (4)\t The
\n‘conduct of  PW 1  after the occurrence was unnatural and he
\nshould have  been disbelieved;\t(5) There  was no motive for
\nthe appellant to commit the offence.\n<\/p>\n
6.   We will  presently consider  them seriatim.  The  first
\ncontention is pressed rather strongly by the learned counsel
\non the\tbasis of  an observation made in Shri Ram Versus The
\nState of  U.P. (1975)  3 S.C.C.\t 495. The Court said in that
\ncase that  the circumstance that the accused had voluntarily
\naccepted the  risk being  identified in\t a  parade  but\t was
\ndenied that  opportunity  was  an  important  point  in\t his
\nfavour. In  that case  the trial court was influenced by the
\naforesaid circumstance\tand acquitted the accused. On appeal
\nthe High  Court rejected  the  same  as\t inconsequential  by
\nobserving that\t oral  testimony of  witnesses, eve  if\t not
\ntested by  holding an identification parade, can be made the
\nbasis of  conviction if\t the request  made by the accused is
\ngroundless and\tthe witnesses  knew the accused prior to the
\noccurrence. This  Court while  holding that  no rule  of law
\nrequired that  the oral\t testimony of  a witness  should  be
\ncorroborated by\t evidence of  identification and  that\tsuch
\nevidence is itself a weak type of evidence observed.\n<\/p>\n
     “But the  point of\t the  matter  is
\n     that the Court which acquitted Shri
\n     Ram was  justifiably influenced  by
\n     the consideration\tthat  though  at
\n     the earliest  stage  he  had  asked
\n     that the  identification parade  he
\n     held, the demand was opposed by the
\n     prosecution  and\tthe  parade  was
\n     therefore not held.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Moreover, in  that case  there was\t serous infirmity in
\nthe testimony  of the  eye witnesses who deposed against the
\naccused and  this Court\t found\tit  to\tbe  unrealistic\t and
\nunacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The purpose  and evidentiary  value  of  identification
\nparade have  been considered  in a  number of  case. In Inre
\nSangiah 49  Cr. L.J.89 Rajamannar, J discussed the matter at
\nlength and said thus:\n<\/p>\n
     I am  unable to  find any provision
\n     in\t the   Code  which  entitles  an
\n     accused   to    demand   that    an
\n     identification  parade   should  be
\n     held at  or before\t the enquiry  or
\n     the trial. An identification parade
\n     belongs\tto    the    stage    of
\n     investigation by  the  police.  the
\n     question whether  a witness  has or
\n     has  not\tidentified  the\t accused
\n     during the investigation is not one
\n     which is  in itself relevant at the
\n     trial.    The    actual\tevidence
\n     regarding\tidentification\tis  that
\n     which is  given by the witnesses in
\n     the  Court.   The\t fact\tthat   a
\n     particular\t witness  identification
\n     parade  is\t  only\ta   circumstance
\n     corroborative of the identification
\n     in a  Court. If  a witness\t has not
\n     identified\t the   accused\tat   the
\n     parade  or\t  otherwise  during  the
\n     investigation  the\t  fact\tmay   be
\n     relied on\tby the\taccused,  but  I
\n     find nothing  in the  provisions of
\n     the Code  wh ch  confers a right on
\n     the  accused  to  demand  that  the
\n     investigation should  be  conducted
\n     in a  particular way. As M.W.N. 427
\n     “Identification  Parades  are  held
\n     not  for\tthe  purpose  of  giving
\n     defence advocates\tmaterial to work
\n     on,  but\tin  order   to\t satisfy
\n     investigating officers  of the bone
\n     fine of  the prosecution witnesses”
\n     In AIR  1948 Lah  303  Blacker,  J.
\n     held thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Whenever\t an    accused\t  person
\n     disputes\tthe   ability\tof   the
\n     prosecution witness  to\tidentify
\n     him, the  Court  should  direct  an
\n     identification parade  to\tbe  held
\n     save  in\tthe   most   exceptional
\n     circumstances”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     With great\t respect to  the learned
\n     Judge  I  am  unable  to  find  any
\n     provision of  law which compels the
\n     Court the so direct a parade. It is
\n     not clear from the judgment whether
\n     the  Court\t making\t an  enquiry  or
\n     holding the  trial should\tstay its
\n     proceedings and  direct the  In may
\n     opinion  it   does\t not  take  into
\n     account the  important fact that an
\n     identification parade  is a part of
\n     the investigation and once the case
\n     has reached the stage of an enquiry
\n     before    the     Magistrate    the
\n     investigation is at an end all that
\n     takes place  in Court  form part of
\n     the record of the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Now  it   is   quite   clear   that
\n     statements\t    made      at      an
\n     identification   parade   are   not
\n     substantive evidence  at the trial.
\n     It must be very embarrassing to the
\n     Magistrate making\tan enquiry    to
\n     listen to\tstatements made\t by  the
\n     witnesses\tat   an\t  identification
\n     parade which  will not  be evidence
\n     at the  enquiry. Further  it is not
\n     incumbent\ton  the\t prosecution  to
\n     examines all the witnesses cited by
\n     them and all these who took part in
\n     the identification\t parade. It will
\n     then mean\tthat the  Magistrate has
\n     heard the\tstatement  of  witnesses
\n     who will  not be  examined\t at  the
\n     enquiry. If on the other hand it is
\n     suggested\t  that\t  a    different
\n     Magistrate\t   should    hold    the
\n     identification parade it appears to
\n     me\t that\tthere  is  no  provision
\n     whatever for  such a  course when a
\n     particular Magistrate  is seized of
\n     the case.\tThe observations  In AIR
\n     1946  Lah\t 48  are   rally  obiter
\n     because  that  case  dealt\t with  a
\n     regular\tappeal\t  against    the
\n     conviction by  a Court  of Session.
\n     In that  case  the\t Magistrate  who
\n     made   the\t  enquiry   refused   an
\n     application  by   the  accused   to
\n     arrange   for   an\t  identification
\n     parade  on\t the  following\t grounds
\n     viz. that\tthe witnesses  knew  the
\n     accused   before\tand   that   the
\n     application was  made only\t for the
\n     purpose  of   delay.  The\t learned
\n     Judges held  that the reasons given
\n     by the  magistrate were  not sound.
\n     It is  true that  they went  on  to
\n     observe  that  should  any\t serious
\n     question of  identity arises during
\n     the course of the trial the ability
\n     of the  witnesses to  identify  the
\n     accused may  be put  to tost before
\n     the trial.\t With great respect I do
\n     not agree.\t If a case is posted for
\n     trail any test as to the ability or
\n     creditability  of\t the   witnesses
\n     should be decided only in Court and
\n     not by  means of  an identification
\n     parade, the  proceedings  at  which
\n     will not form part of the record of
\n     the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   In Kanta  Prashad Versus  Delhi Administration AIR 1958
\nSC  350,   this\t Court\t held  that  failure  to  hold\ttest
\nidentification\tparade\t does  not   make  inadmissible\t the
\nevidence of  identification in\tCourt and that the weight to
\nbe attached  to such  identification is\t a  matter  for\t the
\nCourts of  fact and  it is  not for  the  Supreme  Court  to
\nreassess  the\tevidence  unless   exceptional\tgrounds\t are
\nestablished necessitating such a course.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In State versus Dhanpat AIR 1960 Patna 582 cited before
\nus, it\twas held  that if the witnesses do not give the name
\nof  any\t  accused,  it\t is  necessary\t to  hold   a\ttest
\nidentification parade  and where a witness gives the name of
\nthe accused,  ordinarily no  such parade  is necessary.\t The
\nCourt however  said that if any accused hold out a challenge
\nand says  that he will not be identified by the witnesses or
\nmakes  a   prayer  that\t  he  should  be  put  upon  a\ttest
\nidentification parade,\tsuch a parade must always be held in
\norder to meet the challenge. The Court also said that if the
\naccused was  arrested on  the spot  and was  in custody from
\nthat time upto the date of trial, there could be no question
\nat all about his identity.\n<\/p>\n
10.  A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealt with
\nthe entire  subject of\tidentification Parade  in Ashrafi  &
\nAnr. Versus  The State\t1961 (1)  Crl. L. J.340. It was held
\nthat the  identification of  an accused who is already known
\nto the identifier is futile.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In Budhsen\t & Anr.\t Versus State  of U.P. AIR 1970 S.C.
\n132 it\twas held  that identification  parades belong to the
\ninvestigation stage  and generally  held  with\tthe  primary
\nobject\tof   enabling  the  witnesses  to  identify  persons
\nconcerned in  the offence  who were  not previously known to
\nthem, The  legal effect of identification parades was stated
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “…..that certain\t person are  brought to jail or some
\nother place  and makes\tstatements either express or implied
\nthat a\tcertain individuals  whom they point out are persons
\nwhom they  recognized as having been concerned in the crime.
\nThey do not constitute substantive evidence”\n<\/p>\n
12.  In Tek Chand Versus State AIR 1965 Punjab 146, cited by
\nlearned counsel,  a Division Bench of  the Punjab High Court
\nheld that  the accused cannot compel the prosecution to hold
\ntheir identification  during the  investigation and there is
\nno law\tor procedure  under which  the Magistrate could pass
\nsuch an\t order. The  Bench proceeded  to hold that if such a
\nprayer is  made by  the accused\t and the prosecution opposes
\nthe same,  it exposes  the witnesses  of identification to a
\ngenuine criticism  that they  would probably not be label to
\nidentify the offenders correctly if the parade was held. The
\nCourt held  that when  the request for identification parade
\nwas refused for no valid reason and the court identification
\nwas made long afterwards, the identification evidence in the
\ncourt could not be relied on, unless it was a corroborated.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In Jadunath Singh Versus State of H.P. AIR 1971 S.C.363
\na Bench of Three Judges this Court held that failure to hold
\ntest identification  of accused\t is not\t fatal in all cases.
\nThe Bench  referred to the case law on the subject including
\nthe decision  of the Madras High Court in the Sangiah’s case
\nand held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “It seems\tto us  that  the  reason
\n     given by  the pubic  prosecutor  in
\n     the report\t and the reason given by
\n     the Additional  District Magistrate
\n     (Judicial) in  the order  directing
\n     that identification  requested  for
\n     be not  held were\tnot  valid.  The
\n     fact that\tthe chargesheet had been
\n     received and  the accused\thad been
\n     named by  P.Ws was no justification
\n     for not  having  ordered  the  test
\n     identification. But on the facts of
\n     this case\tit is  clear that PW2 at
\n     least  knew   that\t  accused   from
\n     before. As regards PW 3 although he
\n     claims to\thave known  the accused,
\n     it is  clear that\this knowledge of
\n     the accused  was very  scant and if
\n     had not  been for\tthe evidence  of
\n     PW2  we   would  not   have  placed
\n     reliance on the evidence of PS 3 in
\n     view of  the fact\tthat the  police
\n     did not  ask him  to  identify  the
\n     appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  stated in Phipson on the Law
\n     of\t Evidence,  9th\t Ed.  P.415d  as
\n     follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “In criminal  cases it  is improper
\n     to identify  the accused  only when
\n     in\t the  dock:  The  Police  should
\n     place him,\t before hand,  with  the
\n     orders, and ask the witness to pick
\n     him out.  Nor should  the witness e
\n     guided in\tany way,  nor asked  “is
\n     that the  main”?” We  consider that
\n     the same  is the  law in  India, if
\n     the identify is in doubt.
\n     Accordingly on  the facts\tof  this
\n     case we are of the opinion that the
\n     trial was\tnot vitiated because the
\n     accused   persons\t  were\t  denied
\n     identification.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The same Bench dealt with the State of U.P. Versus Raju
\nAIR 1971  S.C. 708  and held  that in the absence of request
\nfrom accused,  State is\t not bound  to\thold  identification
\nparade when they were arrested on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In Golam  Majibuddin Versus  State of  West Bengal 1972
\nCrl. L. J. 1342, another Bench of three Judges of this Court
\nheld that  when the  witness stated that he already knew the
\naccused before the day of occurrence and it was not the case
\nof the\taccused\t that  he  was\tnot  known  to\tthe  witness
\npreviously, test  identification would serve no purpose. The
\nsame Bench  had not  consider a\t converse case in “Rameshwar
\nsingh Versus  State of\tJ &  K AIR  1972 S.C. 102. The Bench
\nstated the law thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Before dealing  with the\tevidence
\n     relating to  identification of  the
\n     appellant it may be remembered that
\n     the  substantive\tevidence  of   a
\n     witness is\t his evidence  in  Court
\n     but when  the accused person is not
\n     previously\t known\tto  the\t witness
\n     concerned then  the  identification
\n     of the  accused by the witness soon
\n     after the\tformer’s  arrest  is  of
\n     vital   importance\t   because    it
\n     furnishes to  investigating  agency
\n     an assurance that the investigation
\n     is\t proceeding  on\t right\tline  in
\n     addition\tfurnishing corroboration
\n     of the  evidence to be given by the
\n     witness  later   in  Court\t at  the
\n     trial. From  this point  of view it
\n     is a  matter  of  great  importance
\n     both for  the investigating  agency
\n     and for  the accused and a fortiori
\n     for the  proper  administration  of
\n     justice  that  such  identification
\n     delay  after   the\t arrest\t of  the
\n     unreasonable delay after the arrest
\n     of the  accused and  that\tall  the
\n     necessary\t    precautions\t     and
\n     safeguards are effectively taken so
\n     that the  investigation proceeds on
\n     correct line for punishing the real
\n     culprit. It  would, in addition, be
\n     fair to  the witness  concerned who
\n     was  a   stranger\tto  the\t accused
\n     because in\t that event  the chances
\n     of his  memory fading  are\t reduced
\n     and he  is required to identify the
\n     alleged  culprit\ta  the\tearliest
\n     possible  opportunity   after   the
\n     occurrence. It  is\t thus  and  thus
\n     alone that\t justice and  fair  play
\n     can be  assured both to the accused
\n     and   to\tthe   prosecution.   The
\n     identification    during\t  police
\n     investigation, it may be re-called,
\n     is not  substantive evidence in law
\n     and  it   can  only   be  used  for
\n     corroborating   and   contradicting
\n     evidence of  the witness  concerned
\n     as\t   given     in\t   Court.    The
\n     identification\t     proceeding,
\n     therefore,\t must  be  go  conducted
\n     that the  evidence with  regard  to
\n     them  when\t  given\t at  the  trial,
\n     enable the\t Court\tsafely\tto  form
\n     appropriate judicial  opinion about
\n     its  evidentiary\tvalue  for   the
\n     purpose   of    corroborating    or
\n     contradicting the\tstatement in the
\n     Court of the identifying witness.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On the facts of the case, it was found that the name of
\nthe accused  was not  mentioned in the FIR. This Court found
\nthe witnesss  to be  untruthful. This  Court found  that the
\nHigh Court  had erroneously  relied upon statements recorded
\nunder Section  161 Cr. P.C. for the purpose of corroboration
\nof certain  statement made  in Court.  On  that\t basis,\t the
\njudgment of  the High  Court was set aside and the appellant
\nwas acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
15.  In Dharamvir  Versus State of M.P. (1974) 4 S.C.C. 150,
\nit was\theld that no identification parade was called for as
\nthe victim mentioned the names of the accused in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
16.  In Mahtab\tSingh  versus The State of M.P. (1975) 3 SCC
\n407 the\t Bench held  that the need for identification parade
\narises only if the assailants are not previusly known to the
\nwitnesses. It  is to  be noticed  that it  is the  very same
\nBench which dealt with “Shri Ram’s case (supra) relied on by
\nthe appellant and referred to by us in the beginning.\n<\/p>\n
17.  In Harbhajan  Singh Versus State of J & K AIR 1975 S.C.
\n1814 a Bench of Three Judges followed Jadunnath Singh’s case
\n(supra) and  held that\tfailure of  investigating officer to
\nhold identification parade is not necessarily fatal.\n<\/p>\n
18.  In Kanan  Versus State  of Korala,\t AIR 1979 S.C. 1127,
\nthe Court  held that  where a  witness identifies an accused
\nwho is\tnot known to hm in the Court for the first time, his
\nevidence is  absolutely valuless  unless there\thas  been  a
\nprevious test  identification parade  to test  his power  of
\nobservation.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In Narendra  Singh Versus State of H.P. (1987) 2 S.C.C.
\n236, the attack on deceased was witnessed by an uninterested
\nand independent\t witness who  knew the accused already. That
\nwitness snatched  from the accused the Kirpan and the turban
\nwhen he\t escaped  and  deposited  the  same  in\t the  police
\nstation. the  FIR was  lodged  within  15  minutes  and\t the
\naccused was  named therein. The Court held that the question
\nof identification was of no consequence.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In Romesh\tKumar Versus State of Punjab, 1993 Crl. L.J.
\n1800,  a   Bench  of   Two  Judges   held  that\t holding  of
\nidentification parade  was not\tnecessary as the murder took
\nplace in  the rickshaw\tand the\t rickshaw puller stated that
\nthe knew  the accused and that conviction based primarily on
\nhis testimony was proper.\n<\/p>\n
21.  On a  perusal of the above rulings it is clear that the
\nfailure to  held the test identification parade even after a
\ndemand by the accused is not always fatal and it is only one
\nof the\trelevant factors  to  be  taken\t into  consideration
\nalongwith the  other evidence on record. if the claim of the
\nocular witnesss\t that they knew the accused already is found
\nto be true, the failure to hold a test identification parade
\nis inconsequential.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Turning to the facts of this case, it is seen that PW 1
\nhad mentioned  the name\t of the accused in the FIR which was
\ngiven within 15 minutes of the occurrence. The other two eye
\nwitnesses, PW  2 and  PW3 also\tknew the accused previously.
\nThe crucial  factor is\tthat  the  accused  previously.\t The
\ncrucial factor\tis that\t the  accused  was  related  to\t the
\ndeceased as  a son   his “Sala” and PW 1 was also related to
\nthe deceased. The accused had never denied the relationship.
\nAs the\ttrial Judge has observed, ” there is not a scintilla
\nof evidence”  that PW  1 had  a grudge\tagainst the accused.
\nThere is  also no evidence that the wife of the deceased had
\nany enmity  with the  accused. She  would not have allowed a
\nfalse case  to be  foisted on her brother’s son. The accused
\nwas not\t traceable from\t 7.4.77 to  13.5.77. On the facts of
\nthe case, his application for the test identification parade
\non his\tsurrender after\t such a long time does not appear to
\nbe bone\t fide. In  any event,  the  evidence  on  record  as
\naccepted by  the Courts\t below is  sufficient to  prove\t the
\nguilt of  the accused.\tFurther the  point does\t not seem to
\nhave been  argued before  the trial court or the High Court.
\nOn the facts of this case there is no doubt that the failure
\nto hold\t a test\t identification parade in spite of  an order
\npassed\tby   the  Sessions   Court  is\t not  fatal  to\t the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
23.  The  second   contention  is  without  any\t merit.\t The
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution is adequate to prove the
\ncharge. The non-examination of another person who was on the
\nscene of occurrence does not make the evidence of PWs 1 to 3
\nunreliable. It is needless to point out that evidence has to
\nbe weighed and not counted.\n<\/p>\n
24.  The third\tcontention is  based on the statement of PW3
\nin his\tdeposition that Shri Prakash sustained injury in the
\nback whereas  the medical  report showed  that\ttwo  gunshot
\nwounds were  in the  left side chest upper part and inner to
\nnipple. Another\t gunshot wound was found in the spine medial
\npart in thoracic region. The fact that PW3 was travelling in
\nthe same rickshaw as his master, the deceased is established
\nbeyond doubt.  His clothes  which got  stained by  the blood
\nwhich oozed  out of the wounds of the deceased were taken by
\nthe investigating  officer. The High Court has discused this
\naspect of  the matter  at some\tlength and we agree with the
\nreasoning of  the High\tCourt. As  pointed out\tby the\tHigh
\nCourt the  witness having seen the exit wound on the back of
\nthe deceased  bleeding, thought that he had been  hit in the
\nback. Hence we reject this contention.\n<\/p>\n
25.  The fourth contention is equally without any substance.
\nThe argument  is that  PW1 would  have in the first instance
\ntaken the  victim to  the hospital instead of police station
\nand in\tany  event  would  have\t accompanied  PW  3  to\t the
\nhospital. According  to the learned counsel the fact that PW
\n1 stayed  in the  police station  to given a statement after
\nsending\t PW3   and  the\t  victim  to   the  hospital  throws
\nconsiderable suspicion\ton his credibility. We are unable to
\naccept this  contention. The  evidence shows that the victim
\ndied immediately  after the  firing. The witness thought fit
\nto stay\t back at  the police  station to  get his  complaint
\nregistered. Here  again, the  reasoning of the High Court is
\nunassailable and we agree with the same.\n<\/p>\n
26.  The fifth\tand the\t last contention  that there  was no
\nmotive for  the appellant  t  commit  the  offence  is\talso
\nwithout any merit. There is ample evidence on record to show
\nthat there  was a  dispute between  the\t appellant  and\t the
\ndeceased which\tromainod unsettled.  The way  in  which\t the
\ndeceased  was  killed  shows  that  the\t appellant  had\t the
\nintention to  commit the  offence of  murder and accordingly
\ncarried out  the same.\tBut it is well settled that when the
\nfact of\t murder has been proved. there is necessity to prove
\nmotive.\n<\/p>\n
27.  In sum,  the appeal  has to  suffer a  dismissal and is
\naccordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 Bench: M.M. Punchhi, M. Srinivasan PETITIONER: SURENDRA NARAIN @ MUNNA PANDEY Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/1997 BENCH: M.M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present: Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSurendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-30T22:48:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-30T22:48:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\"},\"wordCount\":3918,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\",\"name\":\"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-30T22:48:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-30T22:48:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-30T22:48:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997"},"wordCount":3918,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997","name":"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-30T22:48:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-narain-munna-pandey-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-7-november-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surendra Narain @ Munna Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 7 November, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177635"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177635\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}