Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.843 OF 2006
BADRILAL & ORS. .... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Altogether seven persons were put on trial for offences
under Sections 148, 323 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal
Code. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 20th
January, 1997 acquitted all the accused persons Aggrieved
by their acquittal, the State preferred an appeal and the High
Court by the impugned judgment maintained the acquittal of
the three accused persons but convicted the appellants under
Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous
imprisonment for one year respectively.
2
2. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. According to the prosecution, on 29th January, 1994, the
informant Madanlal (P.W.6) and his father Dhulji, the
deceased, were sleeping in a room adjoining their field and his
nephew P.W.1 Rameshwar was sleeping outside. According to
the prosecution, at 12:15 in the night the appellants herein
came on a motor cycle and threatened Rameshwar who was
sleeping outside. Appellant no.2 also named Rameshwar was
armed with knife, whereas other appellants were armed with
lathis. P.W.1 Rameshwar raised an alarm and on hearing the
same, the informant P.W.6 Madan Lal and deceased Dhulji
came out of the room and all the appellants started beating
them. Madan Lal got knife injury on the head and lathi
injuries on hands and legs. It is the specific allegation of the
prosecution that appellant No.2 Rameshwar stabbed Dhulji
with knife which hit him in the chest and lathi injuries were
inflicted on the head. In the occurrence, according to the
prosecution, P.W.1 Rameshwar got injuries in his left arm
3
and knee and Dhulji died on account of the injuries sustained
by him.
4. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
and the appellants committed to the Court of Sessions to face
trial. Appellants denied to have committed any offence and
claimed to be tried.
5. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, had
mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 Rameshwar and P.W.6
Madan Lal who claimed to be the eye witness to the
occurrence. Prosecution had also examined P.W.7 Dr. M.K.
Pancholi, who had conducted the post mortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased. He had found four injuries on
the person of the deceased and in his opinion the injuries
caused on the head and injury No.4 caused on right parietal
region were by hard and blunt substance, whereas injury nos.
2 and 3 by sharp cutting weapon. On appreciation of
evidence, the trial court held that the deceased Dhulji died
homicidal death. However, it found that the evidence of
P.W.6 Madan Lal is not reliable on account of
contradictions in vital particulars, omissions and further his
4
evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In this
connection the trial court has observed as follows:
“The version of P.W.1 Rameshwar is that
accused Rameshwar stabbed knife in the chest and
stomach and Ramesh, Badri and Shankar beat
Dhulji with stick which was hit in the knees of both
legs. Whereas PW – 6 Madan states that Ramesh,
Badri and Shankar beat Dhulji with lathis. He
states further that Ramesh hit lathi in the head
which he saw. But the said statement of Madan
(PW-6) is corroborated neither by PW-1 Rameshwar
nor First Information Report Ex. P-21 and his police
statement Ex. D-1. He does not mention any
reason as to why this was not got written by him in
his report and police statement. PW-6 Madan Lal
states that he is telling this in the Court for the first
time. Thus, the said statement of Madan Lal which
is not corroborated by any other evidence cannot be
considered to be trust worthy beyond doubt and
this probability cannot be denied that since the
report of Dr. M.K. Pancholi (PW-7) is mentioning
death of Dhulji due to the head injury, therefore,
Madan Lal (PW-6) improving his statement
according to the said medical report and is trying to
give his statement according to the medical report.
In such situation, giving respect to the policy
instances of “Ran Chhod Singh Versus State of M.P.
1983 JLJ 186” and “Ram Narayan and Jagar Singh
& Others versus State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727'.
I arrive at this conclusion that the said statement of
PW -6 Madan Lal cannot be considered trustworthy
beyond doubt and except Madan Lal any other
witness does not make such statement that at the
time of the incident, accused Ramesh inflicted some
injury by lathi on the head of Dhulji from which
also, this conclusion comes out that no injury had
come in the head of Dhulji at the time of the
incident.”
5
6. Identification of the accused persons was also doubted by
the trial court and it found that the claim made by the
witnesses that they identified the accused persons is not fit to
be relied. In this connection, trial court had observed as
follows:
“I arrive at this conclusion that the
prosecution had been unsuccessful in proving that
the night of the incident was bright night or witness
Madan Lal was having torch at that time and he
recognized the accused in torch light. In such a
situation, this probability cannot be denied that at
12 o'clock night, this encounter might have been
made by some other persons whom witnesses could
not recognize but as there was animosity with the
accused, therefore, due to suspicion their names
might have been got written in the report.”
Non-compliance of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was also considered to give benefit of doubt to the
accused persons. Relevant portion of the judgment of the trial
court in this regard reads as follows:
“As far as the question of complying with the
provisions of Section 157 of Criminal Procedure
Code, in this regard, it is the responsibility of the
prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the copy of
the First Information Report was sent to the
concerned Magistrate at once. The purpose of this
provision is only this that later on any change of
any nature could not be done in the First
Information Report. The first Information Report is
6
an important document on which foundation stone
of the prosecution story rests. Mandatory provision
of Section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code is in
respect of such document which if not complied
with, then the state of suspicion is created. In this
case, such is not the clear statement of PW-9
Chandra Pal Singh that he sent the copy of First
Information Report to the concerned Magistrate and
nor has produced any document in connection with
sending the copy. In such situation, only this
conclusion comes out that provisions of Section 157
Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with.”
Cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmities and various other
infirmities pointed out by the trial court led it to conclude that
the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt, and accordingly, acquitted all the accused
persons of the charges levelled against them.
7. However, the High Court in appeal maintained the
acquittal of three accused persons but convicted the
appellants herein as above and while doing so, observed a
follows:
“Learned trial court, while discussing the
prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that it
appears to be doubtful with regard to the
involvement of the respondents in this incident. In
the case where the eye witnesses Rameshwar (PW-1)
and Madanlal (PW-6) were also sustained injuries in
the same incident, their presence on the spot could
not be disputed and one Dhulji died due to grievous
7
injuries sustained to him by the respondents/
accused persons. In such a situation, the approach
of the learned trial court appears to be erroneous
and there cannot be two opinions that it is the
respondents/accused who caused grievous injuries
in furtherance with the common intention to the
deceased which resulted in his death also caused
simple injuries to witnesses Rameshwar (PW-1) and
Madanlal (PW.6).”
8. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants submits that the view taken by the
trial court was one of the possible views and that ought not to
have been interfered with by the High Court in appeal. He
submits that the trial court rightly discarded the evidence of
P.W.1 Rameshwar and P.W. 6 Madanlal, notwithstanding the
fact that they were injured witnesses. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, however,
contends that the High Court while hearing the appeal against
the judgment of the acquittal is not precluded from
appreciating the evidence and come to its own conclusion. She
points out that the trial court ought not to have discarded the
evidence of P.W.1 Rameshwar and P.W.6 Madan Lal, who are
injured witnesses.
8
9. It is trite that the High Court in an appeal from judgment
of acquittal does not interfere with the same when it is found
that the view taken by the lower court is one of the possible
views. It is further trite that the High Court in appeal from a
judgment of acquittal can appraise evidence and come to its
own conclusion. However, while coming to its own conclusion,
it is expected to give due weight to the reasoning given by the
trial court for acquittal. High Court interferes with the same
only when it is found that the view taken is not possible to be
taken in the state of evidence.
10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle when we proceed
to examine the facts of the present case, we find that the view
taken by the trial court is a possible view. While granting the
benefit of doubt to the accused persons, it took into
consideration the contradictions and omissions in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses namely P.W. 1 Rameshwar
and P.W. 6 Madan Lal. Not only this, it found total non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Not only that the witnesses claim of
identification of the accused persons was also doubted. If all
9
these considerations are taken collectively, there is no escape
from the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is
one of the possible views. Injuries to a witness do indicate his
presence at the time of incident, but from that it does not flow
that his evidence is to be accepted automatically. From what
we have observed above it cannot be said that view taken by
the trial court is perverse and therefore, we are of the opinion
that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court erred in interfering with the order of acquittal.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellants
are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in
any other case.
…….…………………....................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
……...........................................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
JULY 29, 2010.
1
[PART-I]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2006
BADRILAL & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed
this appeal. As per the counsel, the appellants are
stated to be in jail. The appellants shall be set at
liberty forthwith if not required in connection with
any other case.
The reasoned order to follow.
......................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
......................J
[C.K. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
JULY 29, 2010.