Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1275 of 2001
PETITIONER:
State of Madhya Pradesh
RESPONDENT:
Sewa Singh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/06/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & B.P. SINGH
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against the
judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, directing
acquittal of the respondent. Respondent, who had been
convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and sentenced
to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
preferred an appeal against the judgment of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh. The High Court accepted the
appeal and directed acquittal of the respondent.
2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Achelal (hereinafter referred to as the ’deceased’), while in
custody, was slapped and kicked on his testicles by the
accused, who was the S.H.O., and that resulted in his death.
The autopsy on the body of Achelal was conducted by a panel
of three doctors on 14.12.1987. The post mortem report is Ex.
P-1A. According to this report no external or internal injury
was found on the dead body. The cause of death has been
shown as ’unknown’. The viscera of the dead body was
preserved. It was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Sagar and as per report Ex.P-21, the presence of Ethyl Alcohol
was detected therein.
3. The respondent took the plea that he had not assaulted
the deceased. Placing reliance on the evidence of Kusum (PW-
6) who claimed to be witness, conviction was recorded by the
Trial Court and sentence was imposed as noted above. The
High Court found that the evidence of PW-6 was not reliable
and in any event the medical evidence completely ruled out
the version presented by PW-6.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-State submitted that the High Court has erroneously
directed acquittal of the respondent. Evidence of PW-6 should
have been accepted and there was no contradiction between
medical evidence and the ocular evidence.
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
spite of service of notice.
6. Two factors weighed with the High Court in directing
acquittal i.e. (a) apparent contradictions in the evidence of PW-
6 and (b) her version being at variance with the medical
evidence. The post-mortem was conducted by a team of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
doctors. It was noted that there was no external or internal
injury and the cause of death is unknown. On forensic
examination presence of Ethyl Alcohol was noticed. If the
deceased had been subjected to kicks on vital parts or slapped
as was stated by PW-6 there certainly would have been marks
of injury. Doctor’s evidence clearly rules this out. Further the
evidence of PW-6 was rightly held to be unreliable by the High
Court. During investigation she has stated that the accused
had slapped the deceased. There was no mention about the
kick on the thigh or that the accused kicked the deceased after
he fell down. Further the evidence of PW-2 (brother of PW-6)
was to the effect that PW-6 had told him that the deceased
was assaulted by Sub Inspector Pandey and the accused.
Evidence of PW-6 is entirely different. It is true that in the case
of custodial violence there would be less possibility of getting
direct evidence, and direct independent witness. This was the
position as indicated by this Court in State of M.P. v.
Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995 (4) SCC 262). There
were injuries on the body of the deceased in that case. In the
present case medical evidence clearly shows that there was no
external or internal injury.
7. Above being the position, the judgment of acquittal
passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to
warrant interference.
8. The appeal is dismissed.