TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms convictions under IPC, upholds sentences & dismisses appeals</h1> <h3>Mansoor and Others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh</h3> Mansoor and Others Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh - 1971 AIR 1977, 1971 (0) Suppl. SCR 731, 1971 (2) SCC 369, Issues Involved:1. Conviction and acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC.2. Adequacy of the sentences imposed.3. Prejudice due to refusal to grant adjournment for the production of defense witnesses.4. Competence of the Additional Government Advocate to present the appeal in the High Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction and Acquittal of the Accused:The appeals concern the conviction and acquittal of ten accused persons charged under sections 302/34, 302/149, 307/34, 307/149, 302, 307, and 148 of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted Mansoor, Rashid, Ishaq, and Yunus, while acquitting the others due to the benefit of doubt. The High Court upheld these convictions and additionally convicted Mehmood s/o Bhondekhan, who was initially acquitted by the Trial Court. This resulted in the charges under sections 148 IPC and 302/149 IPC being proved against all five convicted accused persons. The High Court also found the charge under section 324/149 IPC for injuries inflicted on Ikbal Beg to be proved.2. Adequacy of the Sentences Imposed:The High Court did not find any cogent ground for enhancing the sentence of life imprisonment to that of death for the offence under section 302 read with sections 34 and 149 IPC. The revision petition for enhancement of the sentences was dismissed. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision regarding the adequacy of the sentences.3. Prejudice Due to Refusal to Grant Adjournment for the Production of Defense Witnesses:The Supreme Court examined the circumstances under which the defense witnesses were not examined by the Trial Court. The accused had not filed any list of defense witnesses in the Court of the Committing Magistrate but did so in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The Trial Court declined further adjournment after the defense witnesses were not present on the designated day. The Supreme Court allowed the accused to examine ten witnesses in the interests of justice, but only one witness, Munshi Khan, was examined. The Supreme Court found the evidence of Munshi Khan unimpressive and not calling for serious consideration.4. Competence of the Additional Government Advocate to Present the Appeal in the High Court:The Supreme Court addressed the contention that the appeal in the High Court was incompetent because the Additional Government Advocate was not the Public Prosecutor. The Gazette Notification showed that Mr. Dubey, the Additional Government Advocate, was notified as Public Prosecutor for the High Court in respect of cases arising in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, stating that the Additional Government Advocate was lawfully empowered to present the appeals in the High Court against orders of acquittal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, finding no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The conviction of the appellants under sections 302/34 IPC and other related charges was upheld, and the competence of the Additional Government Advocate to present the appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court also did not find any cogent grounds for enhancing the sentences imposed by the High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
