MAQSOODAN & OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [AND VICE-VERSA]

MAQSOODAN & OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [AND VICE-VERSA]

Conviction of the four appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC was affirmed on the basis that their participation and presence was proved beyond reasonable doubt by quality evidence from injured eye witnesses, whose testimony did not become unreliable due to improvements or variations. Statements termed dying declarations were erroneously so called and properly used as corroborative evidence under s.157 Evidence Act. Common intention was established from the circumstances, but not common object for unlawful assembly.

Parties
Appellant: Maqsoodan; Appellant: Madan Mohan; Appellant: Prayagnath; Appellant: Nando; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Complainant Advocate: O.P. Rana; Complainant Advocate: M. V. Goswami; Appellant Advocate: Rajendra Singh; Appellant Advocate: R.K. Garg; Appellant Advocate: B.P. Singh; Appellant Advocate: Ranjit Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 December 1982
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Decided
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Common Intention, Unlawful Assembly, Murder, Dying Declaration, Quality of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Common Intention Unlawful Assembly Murder Dying Declaration Quality of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maqsoodan

Appellant

Madan Mohan

Appellant

Prayagnath

Appellant

Nando

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

O.P. Rana

Complainant Advocate

M. V. Goswami

Complainant Advocate

Rajendra Singh

Appellant Advocate

R.K. Garg

Appellant Advocate

B.P. Singh

Appellant Advocate

Ranjit Kumar

Appellant Advocate

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction based on interested eye witnesses is sustainable
  2. 2 Admissibility of statements erroneously termed dying declarations
  3. 3 Proof of common intention and common object for conviction under IPC

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction of the four appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC was affirmed on the basis that their participation and presence was proved beyond reasonable doubt by quality evidence from injured eye witnesses, whose testimony did not become unreliable due to improvements or variations. Statements termed dying declarations were erroneously so called and properly used as corroborative evidence under s.157 Evidence Act. Common intention was established from the circumstances, but not common object for unlawful assembly.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentences by High Court on Maqsoodan, Madan Mohan, Prayagnath and Nando under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed.
  • State appeals also dismissed.