{"id":204380,"date":"1994-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994"},"modified":"2016-12-18T05:17:25","modified_gmt":"2016-12-17T23:47:25","slug":"mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994","title":{"rendered":"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 19 JT 1994 (1)\t515<\/div>\n
Author: G Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, G.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMATAPRASAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/02\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (2)  19 JT 1994 (1)\t515\n 1994 SCALE  (1)412\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRAY, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment  dated
\nOctober\t 22,  1982  passed  by\tthe  Lucknow  Bench  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 544 of 1976 and
\n545 of 1976 modifying the conviction and sentence passed  by
\nthe  learned  Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda\tin  Sessions
\nTrial  No. 222 of 1974.\t Nine accused persons including\t the
\nsix  appellants\t in  this appeal faced\ttrial  in  the\tsaid
\nsessions case on charges under Sections 120-B, 148, 302 read
\nwith Sections 149 and 147 IPC for murdering one Radhey Shyam
\non  April  23, 1974.  The learned Sessions  Judge  convicted
\naccused\t 1, 5 and 6 namely, Amrika, Nauranglal and Raja\t Ram
\nunder Sections 120-B, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
\nsentenced  them to suffer two years’  rigorous\timprisonment
\nunder  Section\t148  and the  imprisonment  for\t life  under
\nSection 302 read with Section 149 IPC.\tNo separate sentence
\nwas, however, awarded under Section 120-B IPC.\tThe  learned
\nSessions Judge also convicted accused 3 Mata Prasad, accused
\n4  Bachcha Lai and accused 2 Ambar, under Sections 147,\t 302
\nread with Section 149 IPC and awarded sentence of one year’s
\nrigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147\t and
\nlife  imprisonment under Section 302 read with\tSection\t 149
\nIPC.  Accused 3 and 4 were also convicted under Section 120-
\nB  but\tno  separate  sentence was  passed  on\tthat  count.
\nAccused 7 Kapil Deo, was also convicted under Sections\t147,
\n120-B  and  302\t read with Section 149 IPC  and\t one  year’s
\nrigorous  imprisonment\twas awarded for\t the  offence  under
\nSection 147 and imprisonment for life for the offence  under
\nSection 302 read with Section 149 IPC.\tNo separate sentence
\nwas awarded under Section 120-B IPC.  Accused 8 Hara  Prasad
\nand  accused 1 Amrika were convicted only under Section\t 302
\nread  with  Section 149 IPC and the learned  Sessions  Judge
\nawarded\t life imprisonment for the said offence.   The\tsaid
\naccused\t persons  preferred two appeals before\tthe  Lucknow
\nBench of the Allahabad High Court being Criminal Appeal Nos.
\n544  of\t 1976 and 545 of 1976.\tBoth the said  appeals\twere
\nheard analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment.
\nBoth the said criminal appeals were partly allowed.  So\t far
\nas  accused 4 Bachcha Lai is concerned, the High  Court\t set
\naside the conviction under Section 120-B IPC but upheld\t the
\nconviction under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC
\nbut  on\t consideration\tof the facts that  at  the  time  of
\ncommission  of\tthe offence he was aged only 16\t years,\t the
\nHigh  Court  suspended\tthe sentence by\t giving\t benefit  of
\nSection 30 of the U.P. Children Act and directed to  furnish
\npersonal  bond\tof Rs 5000 and two sureties of\tlike  amount
\none  of such sureties to be furnished by an elder member  of
\nthe family.  The conviction under Section 120-B IPC was\t set
\naside  in  favour of all the appellants.  In both  the\tsaid
\nappeals\t the conviction and sentence passed by\tthe  learned
\nSessions Judge against Mata Prasad, Naurang Lai, Amrika\t and
\nRaja  Ram under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149\t IPC
\nwere  upheld by the High Court.\t Accused 8 Hara\t Prasad\t and
\naccused 9 Babu La], were acquitted in view of setting  aside
\nthe  conviction and sentence under Section 120-B  IPC.\t The
\nconviction  and\t sentence  of accused  7  Kapil\t Deo,  under
\nSections  147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC were upheld  by
\nthe  High Court.  As aforesaid, the instant appeal has\tbeen
\npreferred  by accused 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7,  namely,  Amrika,
\nAmber,Mata Prasad, Naurang Lai, Raja Ram and Kapil Deo.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The\t prosecution case in short is  that  the  appellants
\nAmber  and  Amrika  are real brothers  and  Naurang  Lai  is
\ncollateral of Amrika while Raja Ram is
\n21<\/span>
\nservant\t of Amrika and Kapil Deo was in the gang  of  Amrika
\nbecause\t he used to borrow money from him.  Mata Prasad\t and
\nBachcha Lai were cousins and they were also close to  Amrika
\nwho was an influential man in the locality.  Hara Prasad and
\nBabu  Lai  were also the friends of Amrika.   Amrika  was  a
\nchaukidar  of  the  Police  Station,  Kotwali,\tGonda.\t The
\ndeceased,  Radhey Shyam, had taken three bighas land in\t the
\nvillage\t from  Radhika\tand Radhey Shyam  had  been  put  in
\npossession  of\tthe  said  land\t and  although\tRadhika\t had
\npromised  to execute the sale deed after  consolidation,  it
\nwas  not done.\tRadhika later on sold the said land  to\t the
\naccused\t Hara Prasad about three years prior to the date  of
\noccurrence.  The said Hara Prasad after one and a half years
\nfrom  the  date\t of  the said purchase\thad  tried  to\ttake
\npossession of the said land but such attempt was resisted by
\nthe  deceased  Radhey Shyam.  In view of such  purchase\t and
\nattempts  for  dispossession, there was enmity\tbetween\t the
\ndeceased  and Hara Prasad.  It is the prosecution case\tthat
\nHara Prasad and Babu Lai planned to kill Radhey Shyam and on
\nthe  evening  of April 22, 1974, the  accused  Mata  Prasad,
\nAmbar, Naurang Lai, Raja Ram and Kapil Deo, Hara Prasad\t and
\nBabu  Lai conspired that Kapil Deo would bring Radhey  Shyam
\nand he would be killed.\t On April 22, 1974, Radhey Shyam had
\ngone  to Gonda but had not returned by 10 o’clock  at  night
\nand  the family members had gone to sleep.  Next morning  on
\nApril  23, 1974, at about 7.00 a.m. Radhey Shyam  and  Kapil
\nDeo were seen coming from the east of the shop of Amrika  by
\nPW  3  Muni Ram.  The said witness Muni Ram, had  also\tseen
\nRadhey Shyam and Kapil Deo entering the shop of Amrika where
\nMata  Prasad, Bachcha La], Amber, and Kapil Deo\t were  armed
\nwith lathis, Amrika had a gun, Naurang Lai had a ballam\t and
\nRaja Ram carried a pharsa and all of them started assaulting
\nRadhey\tShyam with their respective weapons.  On seeing\t the
\nassault\t on  Radhey  Shyam,  PW 3 rushed  to  the  house  of
\nBaijnath  which\t was  at a distance of 1  1\/2  furlongs\t and
\ninformed  them that Radhey Shyam was being assaulted by\t the
\nsaid accused persons.  On hearing of the said assault, PW  1
\nBallu, who is the sister of Radhey Shyam and PW 2 father  of
\nRadhey\tShyam, rushed towards the shop of Amrika along\twith
\nPW  3 Muni Ram, and on the way they met one Nakched who\t had
\nalso accompanied them.\tThey, however, could not find anyone
\nin the said shop but on moving little further they saw\tthat
\nthe  body of Radhey Shyam was being dragged on by  means  of
\nelectric  wire which was tied on the waist of Radhey  Shyam.
\nThe  accused, Kapil Deo and Amber held the hands  of  Radhey
\nShyam and Mata Prasad and Bachcha Lai held his legs.  Amrika
\nwas  found  armed with the gun, Naurang Lai had\t ballam\t and
\nAmber  and  Kapil Deo carried lathis.  The  body  was  being
\ncarried towards the chak road which was to the north of\t the
\nshop of Amrika.\t On the cry being raised, the appellants and
\nother  accused ran leaving the body of Radhey  Shyam.\tWhen
\nBallu, Baijnath and Muni Ram reached, they found that Radhey
\nShyam was already dead.\n<\/p>\n
3.A  written  report about the incident was  dictated  by
\nBaijnath  to Muni Ram who transcribed the same and  Baijnath
\nlodged\tthe  report at the Police Station, Kotwali  and\t the
\ncase  was  registered by the Head  Constable  Baldeo  Prasad
\nPathak at about 11.00 a.m. on April 23, 1974.  Kalika Singh,
\nStation Officer, Kotwali, was present at the time of lodging
\nthe  report.   He  interrogated Baijnath  and  prepared\t the
\ninquest\t of  the body of Radhey Shyam being Ext.   Ka-3\t and
\ndespatched   the  body\tfor  postmortem\t examination.\t The
\nInvestigating  Officer found blood in the field of  Samokhan
\nwhere the body was lying and the
\n22<\/span>
\nInvestigating  Officer collected the same and  prepared\t the
\nrecovery  memo.\t  He also noticed the blood in the  shop  of
\nAmrika and also from the chak road up to the shop of Amrika.
\nThe  bloodstained earth and plain earth from the  respective
\nplaces were collected and the recovery report was  prepared.
\nIn the shop of Amrika, he found a pair of Kharaon blades  of
\npharsa,\t a gunny bag and wooden part of gun  which  connects
\nthe barrel to the butt of the gun and the said articles were
\nalso  seized  and  sealed  by  preparing  the  memos.\t The
\nInvestigating Officer searched the house of Amrika and Ambar
\nand  seized  the gun after such search.\t PW  5\tDr  Narendra
\nVerma  performed the postmortem examination and\t prepared  a
\nreport\tbeing Ext.  Ka-7 and he found 17 injuries  including
\nincised\t wounds, punctured wounds and lacerated wounds.\t  At
\nabout 11.45 a.m. on the date of occurrence, namely, on April
\n23,  1974,  an information was received\t from  the  district
\nhospital  through  memo\t Ext.  Ka-9 that  the  accused\tMata
\nPrasad was present there and the police constables were sent
\nto  the hospital to keep watch and arrest him  after  making
\nG.D.  entry  being Ext.\t Ka-21.\t The said  Mata\t Prasad\t was
\narrested and locked up in the police lock-up at about  15.55
\nhrs  on the same date.\tThe accused Amrika was arrested\t and
\nwas  locked  up at about 17.30 hrs on the same day  and\t the
\nother\taccused\t  persons   surrendered\t  in   court.\t The
\nInvestigating Officer interrogated prosecution witnesses and
\nalso  the  accused persons and prepared a site plan  of\t the
\nscene  of occurrence.  Later on, further  investigation\t was
\ntaken up by the Circle Officer Ram Nagina Singh, PW 9.\n<\/p>\n
4.Twelve  witnesses  were  examined  on\t behalf\t of   the
\nprosecution  including\tPW 1 Ballu, PW 2 Baijnath and  PW  3
\nMuni  Ram.  PW 3 Muni Ram, is the eyewitness of the  assault
\nat  the\t shop of Amrika and also an eyewitness of  the\tdead
\nbody being carried to the field of Samokhan.  The other\t two
\nwitnesses,  namely,  PW 1 Ballu and PW 2 Baijnath  had\tonly
\nseen  the  dead body being carried out by the  said  accused
\npersons.  The other witnesses proved the inquest, postmortem
\nreport,\t search of the house of Amrika and Amber  and  other
\ndetails of various steps taken by the police.\n<\/p>\n
5.All  the accused denied the prosecution story\t and  had
\npleaded that they had been falsely implicated on account  of
\nenmity.\t  Each of the accused persons gave their  respective
\nversion in support of the contention that Radhey Shyam,\t his
\nfather, Baijnath, PW 2 and the said eyewitness Muni Ram were
\ninimical  to the accused persons for different reasons.\t  It
\nwas  also  contended on behalf of the accused  persons\tthat
\nRadhey\tShyam  was  a man of  desperate\t character  and\t was
\nchallenged on the charge of dacoity on a few occasions.\t The
\nsaid  Radhey Shyam was highly cross because of the  purchase
\nof  the said land by Hara Prasad and he with his  associates
\nwanted to assault Hara Prasad and his friends.\tMata  Prasad
\nstated\tthat the deceased Radhey Shyam along with  three  or
\nfour  persons  came to the shop of Amrika and fired  with  a
\npistol\tat  Mata Prasad and on his  alarm,  several  persons
\narrived there and there was a ‘mar pit’.  It was the case of
\nthe  accused  that  the\t villagers  came  to  the  scene  of
\noccurrence  on\thearing the noise of ‘mar  pit’\t and  Radhey
\nShyam  was assaulted by the villagers causing his death\t and
\nhis  body was thrown in the field of Samokhan.\tA number  of
\nwitnesses  were examined on behalf of the  accused  persons.
\nDW 1 Dr R.S. Pandey proved the injuries of Mata Prasad which
\nwere  examined by him on April 23, 1974 at about 10.45\ta.m.
\nThe said doctor noted four lacerated wounds on the hands  of
\nsaid  Mata  Prasad and he also advised for X-ray.   He\talso
\nstated that on examination
\n23<\/span>
\nof  X-ray report, he found some metallic pieces\t around\t the
\ninjuries.  DW 2 Ram Lakhan Singh stated about the search  of
\nthe  house  of PW 3 Muni Ram at the instance of\t Kapil\tDeo.
\nThe  said  DW  3 Tej Bahadur Singh  is\tStation\t Officer  of
\nKotwali,  Gonda,  and he also stated that Radhey  Shyam\t was
\ncharge-sheeted in the case of dacoity in which Kapil Deo and
\nNaurang Lal were witnesses.  DW 4 Dr V.B. Singh examined the
\ninjuries of Amrika at about 9.15 a.m. on April 24, 1974\t and
\nhe  found  contusions on his person and\t proved\t the  report
\nprepared  by him being Ext.  Ka-10.  DW 5 Ram Shanker was  a
\nConstable,  who proved the report lodged by one\t Smt  Banana
\nagainst\t PW  3 Muni Ram.  DW 6 Kesari  Nandan  Singh  stated
\nabout\tthe   special\treport\tsent  in   the\t office\t  of
\nSuperintendent of Police.\n<\/p>\n
6.The  learned Additional Sessions Judge did  not  accept
\nthe  defence  case that Radhey Shyam was  aggressor  and  he
\nassaulted Mata Prasad and being a man of desperate character
\nhe suffered injuries during the ‘mar pit’ and being severely
\nassaulted  by the angry villagers who reached the  spot,  he
\nhad died.  On the contrary, the learned Additional  Sessions
\nJudge  believed the prosecution case that the  said  accused
\npersons\t hatched a conspiracy to kill Radhey Shyam and\talso
\nassaulted  him\twith  deadly weapons causing  his  death  as
\nalleged by the eyewitness PW 3 Muni Ram.\n<\/p>\n
7.Accordingly,\tthe  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge
\nconvicted all the said accused persons and awarded sentences
\nunder different counts as indicated hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
8.During the hearing of the appeal before the High Court,
\nit  was contended on behalf of the  accused-appellants\tthat
\nthe  evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses, namely PWs  1,  2
\nand  3\tshould\tnot  be\t believed  because  they  were\t all
\ninterested  witnesses and were inimical for various  reasons
\nagainst\t the  accused persons.\tIt was contended that  PW  3
\nMuni  Ram was the only eyewitness of the alleged assault  on
\nthe deceased but the said Muni Ram was himself implicated in
\ncriminal  case\twhere  some  of\t the  accused  persons\twere
\nwitnesses.   He,  therefore,  made  a  false  statement\t  to
\nimplicate the accused.\tIn any event, lone testimony of PW 3
\nnot being corroborated by any independent witness should not
\nbe believed.\n<\/p>\n
9.The  High Court, however, did not find that the  charge
\nunder  Section\t120B was proved against any of\tthe  accused
\npersons.   The\tHigh  Court, therefore,\t acquitted  all\t the
\naccused\t from the charge under Section 120-B IPC.  The\tHigh
\nCourt, however, indicated reasons as to why the defence case
\ncould\tnot  be\t accepted  and\tthe  prosecution  case\t was
\nacceptable  and\t by  indicating\t such  reasons\tupheld\t the
\nconviction of the appellants in the instant appeal with some
\nmodifications  as  indicated hereinbefore  and\tawarded\t the
\naforesaid sentences against the aforesaid appellants.\n<\/p>\n
10.At the hearing of this appeal, Mr Sushil Kumar, learned
\nSenior Counsel, very strongly contended that the case of the
\nprosecution could not have been accepted by the courts below
\nand it was practically on surmise and conjectures, the\tHigh
\nCourt  had found that the accused persons had committed\t the
\noffences alleged against them.\tIt was contended by him that
\nalthough it was the case of the prosecution that when PWs  1
\nand  2,\t namely, the sister and the father of  the  deceased
\nwere  going with Muni Ram PW 3 towards the shop\t of  Amrika,
\nthey met one Nakched who also accompanied them but the\tsaid
\nNakched, who was
\n24<\/span>
\nan independent witness, was not examined by the prosecution.
\nMr  Sushil Kumar also contended that immediately  after\t the
\nincident  Mata Prasad has to be admitted in  the  Government
\nHospital,  Gonda,  with injuries on his person\tand  he\t was
\nadvised\t for an X-ray report and such X-ray report  revealed
\nthat  he  had  suffered gunshot\t injuries  because  metallic
\npieces\twere  found at the place of injury.  The  said\tfact
\nclearly\t established  the truth of the case of\tthe  accused
\nthat  Radhey Shyam assaulted Mata Prasad because of the\t old
\nenmity\tand  later on he suffered injuries  when  ‘mar\tpit’
\nfollowed  such assault on Mata Prasad.\tMr Sushil Kumar\t has
\nalso contended that it has been proved not only by the\toral
\nevidences adduced on behalf of the accused persons but\talso
\non  the\t basis\tof the documents proved\t on  behalf  of\t the
\naccused\t persons  that the deceased was a man  of  desperate
\ncharacter  and\the was involved on charge of  dacoity  on  a
\nnumber\tof occasions.  He has also submitted that  the\tonly
\neyewitness Muni Ram was also involved in a criminal case  in
\nwhich  some of the accused persons were witnesses.   He\t has
\nsubmitted  that it does not require any imagination to\thold
\nthat  the  said Muni Ram bore definite\tgrudge\tagainst\t the
\naccused persons and he falsely implicated the said  persons.
\nMr  Sushil Kumar has also contended that normally  Muni\t Ram
\nwas  not expected to be present at the place  of  occurrence
\nbecause he belongs to a different village and he was only  a
\nchance witness.\t The explanation given by the said Muni\t Ram
\nas  to\twhy  he\t came to that place  should  not  have\tbeen
\naccepted  by  the courts below particularly when  he  was  a
\nhighly partisan witness.  Mr Sushil Kumar has contended that
\nboth Mata Prasad and Amrika suffered injuries at the time of
\noccurrence which clearly established the case of the accused
\nthat because of the aggressive action taken by the  deceased
\nthere  had been a ‘mar pit’ for which both Mata\t Prasad\t and
\nAmrika\t had  to  suffer  injuries.   The  prosecution\t has
\nabsolutely  failed to explain the injuries on the person  of
\nMata Prasad and Amrika.\t Mr Sushil Kumar has contended\tthat
\nalthough in a broad daylight the alleged gruesome murder had
\ntaken  place  and  a gun was fired  thereby  attracting\t the
\nattention  of  the villagers and although the  body  of\t the
\ndeceased was carried by a number of persons up to the  field
\nof  Samokhan,  no  independent\twitness\t from  amongst\t the
\nvillagers  had\tcome  forward to depose\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nprosecution  in support of the prosecution case.  Mr  Sushil
\nKumar  has contended that in an appropriate case,  for\tgood
\nreasons,  the  evidence\t of an\tinterested  witness  may  be
\naccepted by the Court but in the facts and circumstances  of
\nthe  case, the evidence of PW 3 Muni Ram cannot be  accepted
\nand  in the absence of any corroborative evidence about\t the
\nassault\t made on the deceased, no conviction was  warranted.
\nHe has submitted that the other two eyewitnesses, namely, PW
\n1  and\tPW  2,\tnamely, the father and\tthe  sister  of\t the
\ndeceased  had  no occasion to see the assault and  they\t had
\ndeposed\t only about the dragging of the deceased up  to\t the
\nfield\tof  Samokhan.\tHence,\tthey  had  no  occasion\t  to
\ncorroborate the testimony of PW 3 Muni Ram about the  actual
\nassault made on the deceased Radhey Shyam.  Mr Sushil  Kumar
\nhas  also  submitted that in any event, Mata  Prasad  having
\nsuffered serious injuries including the gunshot injuries had
\nample  justification  to assault the deceased  to  save\t his
\nlife.  He has contended that if a person was attacked with a
\npistol,\t the  person concerned was bound to  immobilise\t the
\nassailant in order to save his life.  In such circumstances,
\nit is very difficult to weigh the force to be applied by way
\nof  self-defence  in  a golden scale and in  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of the case, Mata Prasad is entitled  to\t get
\nthe benefit of right to
\n25<\/span>
\nself-defence.\tIn any event, he could not be punished on  a
\ncharge of murder even if it is accepted that he had exceeded
\nthe  right of self-defence.  Mr Sushil Kumar  has  contended
\nthat  the  salient  features  of  the  case  which   clearly
\ndemonstrated  the falsity of the prosecution case have\tbeen
\nlost  sight of by the courts below and on the  surmises\t and
\nconjectures the conviction and sentences were imposed on the
\nappellants.  He has submitted that it is pre-eminently a fit
\ncase  where  a judgment of acquittal is\t warranted  and\t the
\nappeal,\t therefore, should be allowed by setting  aside\t the
\nconviction and sentences imposed on the appellants and\tthey
\nshould be acquitted by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
11. Such contentions were , however, disputed by the learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  State and it was contended  by  the\tsaid
\nlearned counsel that the falsity of the case of the  accused
\nwas  clearly  established  and\tthe  High  Court  has  given
\nelaborate reasoning as to why the case sought to be made out
\nby the accused persons cannot be accepted.  He has submitted
\nthat the time and place of occurrence have been admitted  by
\nthe  accused.  Bloodstains were noted in the shop of  Amrika
\nand trail of blood was also noted on the road through  which
\nthe dead body was dragged.  He has submitted that it has not
\nbeen  established  by any cogent evidence that there  was  a
\n‘mar pit’ at the shop of Amrika and the villagers  assaulted
\nthe deceased causing his death.\t Such allegation,  according
\nto  the\t learned  counsel  for\tthe  State,  is\t a  fanciful
\nimagination without any basis and such case has been rightly
\nrejected by both the courts below.  The learned counsel\t has
\nsubmitted that both the learned Sessions Judge and the\tHigh
\nCourt  have concurrently found that  the  accused-appellants
\ncommitted  the\toffence alleged against them.  There  is  no
\noccasion  for  this  Court  to\tset  aside  such  concurrent
\nfindings  based on proper reasons and evidences\t adduced  in
\nthe  case.   He has, therefore, submitted  that\t the  appeal
\nshould be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
12.After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
\ncircumstances  of the case and the evidences adduced in\t the
\nproceeding, it appears to us that although actual assault on
\nthe deceased had not been seen by the other two eyewitnesses
\nand  PW 3 Muni Ram is the only witness for such\t assault  on
\nthe  deceased, the evidence of Muni Ram appears to be  quite
\nconvincing and does not deserve to be discarded as sought to
\nbe  contended by Mr Sushil Kumar.  PWs 1 and 2 on  receiving
\nthe information that the deceased was being assaulted by the
\naccused persons rushed to the shop of Amrika and they  could
\nnot see the deceased and the accused persons there but\tonly
\non proceeding little further from the said shop, they  could
\nsee  some of the accused persons dragging the dead body\t and
\nthereafter  leaving it in the field of Samokhan.  The  place
\nof  occurrence and the time of occurrence as stated by PW  3
\nMuni Ram is amply corroborated by the presence of bloodstain
\nin the shop and also trail of blood on the road and also  by
\nthe  very  fact\t that  Mata  Prasad  got  examined  in\t the
\nGovernment  Hospital shortly after the incident and  it\t has
\nbeen admitted by Mata Prasad that there had been an incident
\nin which the deceased was assaulted in a ‘mar pit’ in  which
\nhe also received injuries.  Although it was not admitted  by
\nhim  that he and his associates had assaulted  the  deceased
\nbut the factum of incident at the time stated by PW 3 stands
\nadmitted  by Mata Prasad.  It has been explained by PW 3  as
\nto  why\t he was coming near the place of incident  and\tsuch
\nevidence  does not deserve to be discarded.  It is also\t the
\ncase  of  the accused that pistol was used at  the  time  of
\noccurrence.   Hence,  if the injuries were  caused  to\tMata
\nPrasad\tby  pellets,  such  injuries do\t not  appear  to  be
\ninexplicable and a
\n26<\/span>
\nplausible explanation of such injuries as given by the\tHigh
\nCourt  does  not  appear to be fanciful\t or  strained.\t The
\nexistence  of  enmity and bad relation between some  of\t the
\naccused\t and the deceased furnishes the motive for the\tsaid
\nincident.   Absence  of independent witness and\t absence  of
\ncorroboration  of the assault by other\tindependent  witness
\nrequire close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase.  In our view, the High Court has given cogent  reasons
\nas   to\t why  the  prosecution\tcase  should  be   accepted.
\nExcepting  on the question of offence under  Section  120-B,
\nthe  High Court has upheld the conviction of the accused  by
\nconcurring with the learned Sessions Judge.  We do not\tfind
\nany reason to upset such concurrent findings.  The  deceased
\nsuffered  multiple injuries on his person which resulted  in
\nhis  death immediately after the assault.  Such injuries  do
\nnot  support  any  case\t for  right  to\t self-defence.\t We,
\ntherefore,  find no reason to take any contrary\t view.\t The
\nappeal,\t therefore, fails and is dismissed.  The  appellants
\nwere  granted bail during the pendency of this\tappeal.\t  In
\nview  of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants  should
\nbe taken into custody to serve out the sentences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 19 JT 1994 (1) 515 Author: G Ray Bench: Ray, G.N. (J) PETITIONER: MATAPRASAD Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/02\/1994 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION: 1994 […]<\/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-204380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 - 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\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-17T23:47:25+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\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T23:47:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3959,\"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\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\",\"name\":\"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T23:47:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 - 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\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-17T23:47:25+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\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994","datePublished":"1994-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T23:47:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994"},"wordCount":3959,"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\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994","name":"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T23:47:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mataprasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-8-february-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mataprasad vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 1994"}]},{"@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\/204380","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=204380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}