{"id":212245,"date":"1996-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996"},"modified":"2015-10-28T18:01:43","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T12:31:43","slug":"the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (5)\t30, \t 1996 SCALE (4)385<\/div>\n
Author: G Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHAN LAL & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nRAY, G.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (5)\t30\t  1996 SCALE  (4)385\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nPATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  by special  leave is\tdirected against the
\njudgment and  order dated 9.10.1983 passed by the High Court
\nof Madhya  Pradesh at  Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 450 of
\n198;3 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents  were charged under Sections 302\/149 as
\nwell as\t under Section\t449 I.P.C. The respondents Mohan Lal
\nand Chhagan  Lal were  further\tcharged\t under\tSection\t 148
\nI.P.C. and  rest of  the  respondents  stood  charged  under
\nSection 147  I.P.C.  They  were\t convicted  under  different
\ncounts by  the Learned\tAdditional Sessions  Judge, Mandsaur
\nfor having  killed the deceased Mangi Lal after dragging him
\nout of his hut and thereafter assaulting him mercilessly and
\nthrowing acid on him. On appeal the High Court acquitted all
\nthe respondents and hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The  prosecution\tcase  briefly  stated  is  that,  on
\n18.9.1980 during  night all  the accused  respondents  being
\narmed with  gun, sticks and acid entered into the hut inside
\nthe field  of  Mangi  Lal  where  Mangi\t Lal  was  sleeping.
\nRespondents then dragged him out of the hut and some of them
\nassaulted him  by sticks  and respondent Chhagan Lal who was
\ncarrying a  gun assaulted  him with  the butt  of  the\tgun.
\nRespondent –  Mohan Lal\t threw acid on him. Deceased – Mangi
\nLal shouted for help. Having heard the noise, Abdul Rehulan,
\nPW. 1  who was\tstaying at  a distance of 100 yards, woke up
\nand ran\t towards the  place from where Mohan Lal’s voice was
\ncoming. Reaching  at the  place of  occurrence, when  PW.  1
\nasked Mangi Lal about the incident, he told the names of the
\naccused and  told him  that they have killed him by throwing
\nacid. Said  PW. 1  then informed  Mangi Lal’s family members
\nand soon  Mangi Lal’s  son Ram\tGopal, PW.  4 arrived at the
\nplace of  occurrence. Mangi  Lal was  then  brought  to\t the
\nvillage in  the injured\t condition  and\t was  carried  on  a
\ntractor to  Manasa Police  Station. Mangi Lal himself lodged
\nthe report, which was treated as F.I.R. Exhibit P-32. It was
\nrecorded by  the Head  Constable, PW.  14. After registering
\nthe case the police sent Mangi Lal to the hospital at Manasa
\nwhere he  was treated  by doctor PW. 9. As the doctor was of
\nthe opinion that the condition of Mangi Lal was serious, the
\nsub-inspector of  Police, PW.  15 requisitioned the services
\nof the\tJudicial Magistrate,  Ist Class,  Manasa, PW. 10 and
\nrequested him  to record the dying declaration of said Mangi
\nLal. The  said Magistrate  immediately came  to the hospital
\nand on being satisfied\tby questioning the doctor that Mangi
\nLal was\t in a  fit condition to make his statement, enquired
\nfrom Mangi  Lal\t about\tb  the\tincident  and  recorded\t his
\nstatement which\t was exhibited\tin the case as Exhibit P 15.
\nThe said  statement was\t read out to Mangi Lal and hereafter
\nMangi Lal  gave his  thumb impression.\tDoctor\tPW.  9\tthen
\nadvised that  Mangi  Lal  should  the  shifted\tto  Mandsaur
\nhospital. In  accordance with  the said\t advice, while Mangi
\nLal was\t carried to  Mandsaur hospital\the died\t on the way.
\nPostmortem  examination\t on  his  dead\tbody  was,  however,
\nconducted by  the doctor  PW. 2\t and Postmortem\t report\t was
\nexhibited as  Exhibit P-3.  The Investigating Officer in the
\nmeantime proceeded  to the  place of  occurrence, made\tsome
\nseizure\t at   the  spot\t  and  finally\t on  completion\t  of
\ninvestigation,\tsubmitted   the\t charge\t  sheet.  On   being
\ncommitted, the\taccused persons\t were tried  by the  Learned
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge. The prosecution examined as many
\nas is witnesses of whom the most important witnesses are PW.
\n1, Abdul  Rehman, who  was the first person to arrive at the
\nplace of  occurrence on\t hearing the  shout of Mangi Lal and
\nbefore whom  Mangi Lal narrated the names of all the accused
\npersons; PW.  14, the  Head Constable  at the Police Station
\nwho recorded  the F.I.R.;  report having been given by Mangi
\nLal himself  PW.  15,  the  Investigating  Officer  who\t had
\nvisited the  place of  occurrence and  made several seizure;
\nthe doctor  PW. 9  who had  first examined the injured Mangi
\nLal at\tthe hospital  at Manasa;  the Magistrate  PW. 10 who
\nrecorded the  dying declaration of the deceased at 5.00 A.M.
\non  19.9.1990  and  the\t doctor\t PW.  2\t who  conducted\t the
\nPostmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The
\nprosecution also  examined PWs.\t 12, 13\t and 14 to establish
\nthe animosity  between deceased and Mohan Lal over the field
\nfor  which  police  had\t taken\taction\tagainst\t them  under
\nSections 107  and 116(3)  of Code of Criminal Procedure. The
\nplea of\t the accused  persons was one of denial. The Learned
\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge  on\t thorough  scrutiny  of\t the
\nevidence  on  record  and  relying  upon  dying\t declaration
\nrecorded by  the Magistrate,  which was exhibited as Exhibit
\nP-15 and  finding out  corroboration thereto  from the\toral
\ndeclaration made  by the  deceased to PW. 1 as deposed to by
\nPW. 1,\tas  well  as  the  medical  evidence,  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t the prosecution  has been able to establish
\nthe charge  against the\t accused persons  beyond  reasonable
\ndoubt and  accordingly convicted  them\tand  sentenced\tthem
\ndifferently. All  the accused  persons were  convicted under
\nSections 302\/149  I.P.C. and  were sentenced to imprisonment
\nfor life.  Accused Mohan  Lal and  Chhagan Lal\twere further
\nconvicted under\t Section 148  and were\tsentenced to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for two years. The rest of the accused
\npersons were  convicted under Section 147 and were sentenced
\nto undergo  rigorous imprisonment  for\tone  year.  All\t the
\naccused persons were further convicted under Section 449 and
\nwere sentenced\tto undergo  rigorous imprisonment  for seven
\nyears and  it was  directed that  the  sentences  shall\t run
\nconcurrently  Being   aggrieved\t by   their  conviction\t and
\nsentence the  accused person moved the High Court in appeal.
\nThe High Court though accepted the prosecution case that the
\nJudicial Magistrate,  PW. 10  recorded the dying-declaration
\nof deceased  Mangi Lal,\t when said  Mangi Lal  was in  a fit
\nstate of  mind but  since it had not been stated in the said
\ndying declaration that the accused persons dragged Mangi Lal
\nout of\this house and assaulted. came to the conclusion that
\nthe occurrence\thaving been  taken place in mid-night inside
\nthe hut\t of the\t deceased,  it\twas  not  possible  for\t the
\ndeceased to  identify the  assailants  and,  therefore,\t the
\ndying declaration  does not  inspire  confidence.  The\tHigh
\nCourt also  lightly brushed  aside the\tstatement of  PW. 1,
\nAbdul Rehman  to whom  the deceased  had not only stated the
\nnames of all the accused persons but had also stated that he
\nwas dragged  out of  the hut  and was  beaten and  acid\t was
\nthrown on  him. With  these conclusions\t the light Court set
\naside the  conviction and  sentences passed  by the  learned
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge and\tacquitted  all\tthe  accused
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Shukla\t learned senior\t counsel appearing  for\t the
\nState –\t appellant contended  that the High Court set in law
\nin discarding the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial
\nMagistrate, PW. 10, on very flimsy grounds and thereby erred
\nin law\tin  acquitting\tthe  accused  persons.\tMr.  Shukla,
\nfurther contended  that the  deceased having  given out\t the
\nnames of  all the  accused persons  to PW. 1 who reached the
\nplace of  occurrence while  deceased was crying for help and
\nfurther the  deceased himself  having  gone  to\t the  Police
\nStation and  lodged the\t report giving\ta brief narration of
\nthe incident and the medical evidence being corroborative of
\nthe  same,   the  conclusion   is  irresistible\t  that\t the
\nprosecution has\t been able  to establish  the charge  beyond
\nreasonable doubt  and therefore\t the order  of acquittal  is
\nwholly illegal.\t Mr. Sushil  Kumar, learned  senior  counsel
\nappearing for  the respondents\ton the\tother hand contented
\nthat  the   dying  declaration\t being\tthe  sole  basis  of
\nconviction and for justifiable reasons the High Court having
\ndiscarded the same and having acquitted the accused persons,
\nsaid order  of acquittal  should not  be interfered  with by
\nthis Court.  In support\t of the conclusion of the High Court
\nthat the  dying declaration,  Exhibit P-15,  recorded by the
\nMagistrate does\t not inspire  confidence, Mr.  Sushil  Kumar
\nsubmitted that\tthe very  fact that  the  deceased  has\t not
\nstated that  he was  brought outside  being dragged  and was
\nassaulted and acid was thrown on him, could lead to the only
\nconclusion that the assault was committed inside the hut and
\ntherefore under\t such circumstances,  the occurrence  having
\ntaken place  in the  mid-night, it will be wholly impossible
\nto identify  the assailants  and consequently the said dying
\ndeclaration has rightly been discarded by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  rival submissions\t at the bar the sole
\nquestion that  arises for consideration is whether the dying
\ndeclaration  made  by  the  deceased  and  recorded  by\t the
\nMagistrate can\tbe accepted and form the basis of conviction
\nof the accused respondents? There cannot be any dispute with
\nthe proposition\t that a\t dying declaration can form the sole
\nbasis of  conviction, though  court look  for  corroboration
\nfrom different circumstances since the same cannot be tested
\nby cross-examination.  Such declaration\t being made  under a
\nsolemn sense of impending death, the deceased is usually not
\nlikely to commit any mistake and therefore the same is given
\ngreat weight.  But at the same time a court has the. duty to
\nscrutinize the\tsame since  the\t accused  has  no  right  of
\ngetting the  statement tested  by cross-examination.  In the
\ncase of\t Kundula Bala Subrahmaniyam and another vs. State of
\nAndhra Pradesh,\t (1993) 2 SCC 684, it has been field by this
\nCourt:\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Section 32(1)  of the Evidence Act
\n     is an exception to the general rule
\n     that  hearsay   evidence\tis   not
\n     admissible\t evidence   and\t  unless
\n     evidence  is   tested   by\t  cross-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     examination,     it      is     not
\n     creditworthy.  Under   Section  32,
\n     when  a  statement\t is  made  by  a
\n     person, as to the cause of death or
\n     as\t to  any  of  the  circumstances
\n     which result in his death, in cases
\n     in which the cause of that person’s
\n     death comes  into question,  such a
\n     statement, oral or in writing, made
\n     by the deceased to the witness is a
\n     relevant fact  and is admissible in
\n     evidence. The statement made by the
\n     deceased,\t  called    the\t   dying
\n     declaration,    falls    in    that
\n     category- provided it has been made
\n     by the  deceased  while  in  a  fit
\n     mental    condition.     A\t   dying
\n     declaration made  by person  on the
\n     verge of  his death  has a\t special
\n     sanctity as  at that solemn moment,
\n     a person  is most\tunlikely to make
\n     all, untrue  statement. The  shadow
\n     of impending death is by itself the
\n     guarantee\tof   the  truth\t of  the
\n     statement\tmade   by  the\tdeceased
\n     regarding\t   the\t   causes     or
\n     circumstances leading to his death.
\n     A\tdying\tdeclaration,  therefore,
\n     enjoys almost  a sacrosanct status,
\n     as a  piece of  evidence, coming as
\n     it\t does  from  the  mouth\t of  the
\n     deceased victim.  Once a  statement
\n     of\t the   dying  person   and   the
\n     evidence\t of\tthe    witnesses
\n     testifying to  the same  passes the
\n     test of  careful  scrutiny\t of  the
\n     courts, it becomes a very important
\n     and a  reliable piece  of\tevidence
\n     and if  the court is satisfied that
\n     the dying\tdeclaration is\ttrue and
\n     free from\tany embellishment such a
\n     dying declaration, by itself can be
\n     sufficient for recording conviction
\n     even  without   looking   for   any
\n     corroboration.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If the\tdying declaration is found to the true and voluntary
\nand was\t made by  a person  concerned while  he was in a fit
\ncondition to  make the\tsame then  the same  can  be  easily
\nrelied upon  by the courts in convicting the accused persons
\neven without  any corroboration\t as has\t been held  by\tthis
\nCourt in  K. Ramachandra  Reddy and  another vs.  The Public
\nProsecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618.\n<\/p>\n
     Bearing in\t mind the  aforesaid legal principles let us
\nnow  examine   the  dying   declaration\t recorded   by\t the
\nMagistrate. Exhibit  p-15, in  the case\t in hand. But before
\nfocussing our attention on the\tsame it would be appropriate
\nto notice  the injuries found on the deceased by the doctor,
\nPW. 9,\twho treated’  deceased Mangi  Lal at the hospital at
\nMarsasa as  well as  the injuries found by the doctor PW. 2,
\nwho had\t conducted the\tautopsy over  the dead\tbody of\t the
\ndeceased. PW. 9 found the following 12 injuries:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1) On  the left side of the skull 2″ above the ear-on
\n     the parietal-region one open wound 1-1\/2 long l\/8” wide
\n     and bone\tdeep. There was slight scrapping on the bone
\n     in this  wound. He\t had recommended  X-Raying for\tthis
\n     injury.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) On the left arm, 2″ above the elbow on the outside,
\n     one lacerated  wound, in  which there  was fracture  of
\n     lower part\t of the humerus bone. Open wound was 1″ long
\n     1\/4″ wide\tand 1\/2″   deep. For this injury also he had
\n     recommended X-Ray examination.
\n     (3) One  more lacerated  wound, about  3\/4″  above\t the
\n     injury No. 2 on the left arm, which was l\/2″ long, 1\/8″
\n     wide and 1\/8″ deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4) On the back side of the left shoulder one contusion
\n     4″ x 1″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5) One  contusion 4″  x 1″  on left  side of  the back
\n     about 3″ below the shoulder injury No. (4).
\n     (6) 3″  below the\tinjury No.  5, one more contusion on
\n     the back  4″ x  3\/4″, the\tinner part  of\tthis  injury
\n     reaching upto the back bone.
\n     (7) About\t3″ below  the shoulder bone on the left side
\n     of the back, one more contusion 6″ x 1\/2″.
\n     (8) On the left hip, one oblique contusion 6″ x 1′.
\n     (9) On  the left  thigh, outwards,\t about 12″ above the
\n     knee, one contusion 3″ x 2″.
\n     (10) On  the left thigh also, 1″ above injury No. 9, in
\n     the side, one more contusion 4″ x 3″, in which a number
\n     of injuries appear to have been caused by stick blows.
\n     “1. Compound  fracture lower  1\/3rd
\n     of left humerus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t Stitched   wound  2″,\tslightly
\n     oblique   on left parietal region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. Lacertated wound 1″ x 1\/6″, bone
\n     deep, on center of frontal region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. Lacerated  wound 1\/4″  x 1\/8″  x
\n     1\/10″ middle  phalanx  left  middle
\n     finger.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Contusion  4 x\t1″ oblique  left
\n     scapular region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. Contusion  3-1\/2″ X  1″ oblique,
\n     left infra-scapular region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t Contusion  10″\t x  1′\tslightly
\n     oblique, left Thoracolumbar region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.\t Contusion   5″\t x  l”\toblique,
\n     center of lower back.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. Contusion  12″ x  l\/2″\toblique,
\n     right  scapular  an  infra-scapular
\n     region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. Contusion  7″ x  1-1\/” on  left
\n     lower back.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.  Contusion  3-1\/2″  x\t1″  left
\n     deltoid region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. Contusions  3″ x 1″ and 3″ x 1″
\n     cross, middle of left upper arm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13. Contusion  3-1\/2″ x 1-1\/2″ left
\n     elbow region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.  Contusion  3″\t x  1″\toblique,
\n     middle  of\t  left\t leg   posterior
\n     aspect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15. Contusion 3-1\/2″ x 1-1\/2″ upper
\n     third of left leg posterior aspect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16. Contusions  2″ x 1″ and 2″ x 1″
\n     oblique, lower 1\/3rd of Right thigh
\n     posterior later aspect.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The said doctor had opinined that the injuries had been
\ninflicted before  death and  the death\twas caused  by shock
\nresulting from the various injuries and acid burns inflicted
\non the\tbody. He  also further\topined that the death of the
\ndeceased could not possibly be caused by any single specific
\ninjury\tbut   the  death  could\t possibly  result  from\t the
\ncumulative effect of all the injuries. Coming now to Exhibit
\nP-15, the  dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, PW.
\n10, it\tis crystal  clear from the prosecution evidence that
\nwhen the  injured reached the hospital at Manasa, the doctor
\nPW. 9  noticed the  condition of Mangi Lal to be serious. To
\nthe querry  of Balwant\tSingh Yadav, PW. 15, the doctor also
\nstated that  Mangi Lal\twas in a fit state of mind and fully
\ncapable of  making any\tstatement. PW.\t15, therefore,\ttook
\nimmediate steps,  requisitioned the services of the Judicial
\nMagistrate, Ist\t Class and  the said  Magistrate came to the
\nhospital soon thereafter. The evidence of Magistrate, PW. 10
\nfurther indicates  that he  enquired from the deceased about
\nhis name, father,s name, residential address and his age and
\nthen enquired  from him\t about the  incident and whatever he
\nstated he  recorded the same as per Exhibit P-15. The doctor
\nwho  was  present  during  recording  of  the  statement  of
\ndeceased by  the Magistrate, gave the certificate that Mangi
\nLal  was   fully  conscious  and  was  in  his\tsense  after
\ncompleting his\tdeclaration. The  prosecution evidence\talso
\nclearly establishes the fact that Mangi Lal was taken to the
\nPolice Station where he gave his statement immediately after
\nthe occurrence,\t which was  treated as\tF.I.R. and  was then
\ntaken  to  the\thospital  and  shortly\tafter  reaching\t the
\nhospital his  statement was  recorded by  the Magistrate  as
\nstated earlier.\t In  the  aforesaid  state  of\taffairs\t the
\nconclusion becomes  irresistible that  the deceased was in a
\nfit state  of mind  to make  the statement and he was making
\nthat statement\twithout any  influence or rancour. There was
\nneither any  possibility of  tutoring or  prompting  by\t any
\nother  person.\tIn  this  connection  we  will\texamine\t the
\ncontention of Mr. Sushil Kumar appearing for the respondents
\nabout the  non-mentioning of  the accused  being dragged and
\nassaulted outside  which according  to him  would  logically
\nlead to\t the conclusion\t that the  assault took place inside
\nthe hut\t and therefore\tthe  deceased  could  not  have\t the
\nopportunity of\tobserving and identifying his assailants. It
\nis no  doubt true that in Exhibit P-15, the deceased has not
\nstated about the accused persons dragging him out of hut and
\nassaulting. But\t if the\t evidence of  PW. 1. Abdul Rehman is
\nexamined  it  would  appear  that  while  the  deceased\t was
\nshouting for  help after  being\t assaulted  by\tthe  accused
\npersons when  PW. 1  reached him, deceased had told him that
\nMohan Lal  threw acid on him and along with Mohan Lal his so
\nGhanshyam, Bhanwar  Singh  Banjara,  Chaggan  Telli,  Sambhu
\nPattedar, Shambhu  Bachera, Sanjay  Bachera  and  Ramchander
\nBachera assaulted  him and thereafter assailants threw acid.
\nThough said  PW. 1  has been  cross-examined at great length
\nbut nothing  has been elicited from him so as to impeach his
\ntestimony. He appears to us to be a truthful witness who has
\nnarrated whatever he heard from the deceased and whatever he
\nsaw at\tthe place  of occurrence. His evidence unequivocally
\nindicates that\tplace of  assault was not inside the hut but
\nwas outside,  after the\t deceased had  been dragged from the
\nhut. He\t has also  stated in  his evidence  that  it  was  a
\nmoonlit night.\tThat apart  the\t evidence  of  Investigating
\nOfficer, PW.  15 gives\tsufficient  corroboration  that\t the
\nplace of  assault was  not inside the hut but outside, after
\nthe accused  dragged the  deceased from his hut. When PW. 15
\nreached the  place of  occurrence he found marks of a person
\nbeing dragged  on the  ground from  the hut  upto the  Mirch
\nfiled. He  also found  some scoreped  plants which seemed to
\nhave been  scorched by\tsome acidic  article and  further he
\nfound burnt  papers including a half burnt two rupee note. A
\nglass bottle  was also\tseen floating in the well containing
\nsome fluid.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  evidence of\t PW. 15\t clinches the matter
\nthat the  assault as  well as  throwing of acid on Mangi Lal
\nhad taken  place outside the hut in the Mirch filed of Mangi
\nLal after  he was dragged from his hut. The F.I.R. which had
\nbeen lodged by the deceased himself also indicates the state
\nof affairs.  Therefore, non-mentioning\tof being dragged and
\nassaulted  outside   in\t Exhibit   P-15\t had   rightly\tbeen
\nappreciated by\tthe Learned  Additional Sessions  Judge that
\ndue to\tthe deteriorating  condition  of  the  deceased\t the
\nomission might have taken place and the said omission is not
\nfatal. In  our opinion the High Court was wholly in error in
\ndiscarding the\tvoluntary statement of the deceased recorded
\nby  the\t  Magistrate  on  flimsy  grounds  which  cannot  be
\nsustained. Having examined the dying declaration made by the
\ndeceased and  recorded by  the Magistrate  PW. 10 as well as
\nthe F.I.R.  which had  been lodged  by the deceased prior to
\nhis death  and the  evidence of PW. 1, Abdul Rehman. to whom
\nthe deceased had narrated the incident immediately after the
\noccurrence, we\thave no\t doubt in our mind that Exhibit P-15
\nis true\t and voluntary\tand had\t been made  by the  deceased
\nwhile he  was in  a fit\t state of  mind\t and  there  was  no
\nopportunity of\teither tutoring or prompting and as such the
\nsame can  be easily  pressed into service by the prosecution
\nin proving  the charges\t against the  accused persons.\tThat
\napart, the  number of injuries found on the deceased as well
\nas the\tacid injury  on\t him  corroborates  the\t said  dying
\ndeclaration.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Sushil\t Kumar in  course  of  his  submissions\t had
\nraised a  contention that  three  of  the.  accused  persons
\nNamely Ramchandra, Chhagan alias Sajan and Shambhu belong to
\na different  village and  there can be no justifiable reason
\nfor them to assault the deceased. But this submission in our
\nconsidered opinion is devoid of any force, inasmuch as while
\ndiscussing  the\t  evidence  about  the\tmotive\tthe  Learned
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge in  paragraphs 59  to 62  of\t his
\njudgment has  clearly found out that all the accused persons
\nbelong to  the rival  group and\t had strained relations with
\nthe deceased  on account of land cultivation and in the case
\nthat had  been filed  in the  Court in\tManasa,\t Ramchandra,
\nChhagan alias Sajan and Shambhu have been arrayed as accused
\nalong with  Mohan Lal.\tIt is  no doubt\t true that  the High
\nCourt has recorded the order of acquittal of the respondents
\nbut it\twould be travesty of justice, if this court does not
\ninterfere with\tsuch order  of acquittal,  where a  gruesome
\nmurder has taken place and the High Court rejects a true and
\nvoluntary  dying   declaration\trecorded   by\ta   Judicial
\nMagistrate by  entering into  realm of\tconjectures. We have
\ngone through  the evidence  on record  and for\tthe  reasons
\nalready stated\twe unhesitatingly  come\t to  the  conclusion
\nthat the  order of  acquittal recorded by the High  Court is
\nwholly unwarranted  and\t unjustified.  The  prosecution\t has
\nproved the  case against  the accused  – respondents  beyond
\nreasonable doubt.  We accordingly  set\taside  the  judgment
\npassed by  the High  Court and\tconfirm the  conviction\t and
\nsentences recorded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.
\nThe accused  – respondents  who are  on bail are directed to
\nsurrender to  receive the  balance period of sentence and if
\nthey fail to surrender. appropriate steps be taken for their
\narrest. This appeal is accordingly allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (5) 30, 1996 SCALE (4)385 Author: G Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J) PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHAN LAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/1996 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: […]<\/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-212245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T12:31:43+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T12:31:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3633,\"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\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T12:31:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T12:31:43+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T12:31:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996"},"wordCount":3633,"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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996","name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T12:31:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-mohan-lal-ors-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 7 May, 1996"}]},{"@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\/212245","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=212245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}