Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1586 OF 2009
Suresh Singh & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh ….Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1342 of 2010)
Ummed Singh & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.05.11
17:01:49 IST
Reason:
1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1342 of 2010.
1
2. These appeals are filed by the accused persons
against the final judgment and order dated
24.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
109 of 1998 whereby the High Court disposed of the
appeal filed by the appellants herein and modified
the order dated 20.02.1998 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No.78 of
1993 by reducing the sentence of the appellants
passed under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) from
seven years to five years and affirmed the sentences
and fine awarded under other sections.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on
06.12.1992, when Keshav SinghComplainant(PW
10) was taking the water to his field from the tube
well of Jairam, the appellants asked him that why
he is taking water through their ‘Medh’. Keshav
2
Singh replied that he will not take the water in
future. Not satisfied with the reply of Keshav Singh,
the appellants came along with Rambaran armed
with Axe and Ummed Singh armed with Bhala and
Ramhet armed with Lathi and started abusing him.
In the meantime, Rambaran went ahead and
inflicted an Axe blow on the head of Keshav Singh
whereas Ramhet inflicted Lathi blow on the wrist of
his right hand and also on the right peddle of leg.
Thereafter, the brothers of Keshav Singh, namely,
Ujjagar Singh and Rai Singh came there, who were
also watering on their fields which were nearer to
the place of occurrence. Inder Singh was also
taking water to his field, therefore, Rambaran
(deceased) inflicted him a blow with Axe on his head
and Ramhet also gave him a Lathi blow on his head.
Thereafter Sobran armed with Lathi and Suresh
armed with Bhala came there. Suresh inflicted a
3
blow with Bhala and Sobran inflicted a lathi blow on
the shoulder of Keshav Singh. Suresh had given a
Bhala blow on the back of Shyam Singh. Rambaran
had given an axe blow on the head of Shyam Singh.
Kali Charan and Mahesh came there for sorting out
the matter. There was a free fight between the two
groups.
4. On the same day, i.e., 06.12.1992, Keshav
Singh lodged a report at the Police Station, Umri,
Dist. Bhind against the appellants herein which was
registered as FIR No.131/92. The injured Keshav
Singh, Ujjagar Singh, Shyam Singh, Rai Singh and
Inder Singh were sent for the treatment to the
Government Hospital, Umri. Later on Rambaran
succumbed to his injuries.
5. For the same incident, the appellants herein
also lodged a report at the Police Station, Umri,
4
Dist., Bhind, which was registered as FIR
No.132/92 dated 06.12.1992.
6. The police investigated both the FIRs and filed
cross case against the appellants under Sections
148, 307 and 323/149 IPC whereas against the
complainant’s side FIR (No.131/1992) under
Sections 148, 302, 149, 325/149, 324, 323/149
IPC.
7. The Additional Sessions judge registered S.T.
No.78/1993 against the appellants herein and S.T.
No.79 of 1993 against Keshav Singh and others
under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324 and
323/149 IPC. Both the trials were tried together
and by order dated 20.02.1998 in S.T. No.78/1993,
all the appellants were convicted under Section 148
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years, Suresh Singh and
Ummed Singh were convicted under Section 307
5
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and a fine of
Rs.2000/ each, Ramhet and Sobran were convicted
under Section 307/149 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and
a fine of Rs.2000/ each, all the appellants were
convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and
further convicted under Section 323/149 IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months. All the sentenced were directed to run
concurrently.
8. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the
other party in S.T. No.79/1993 , namely, Rai Singh,
Keshav Singh, Ujjagar Singh, Inder Singh, Gyan
Singh and Shyam Singh for the offences punishable
under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 325 and
323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
6
imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC,
life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC,
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section
323/149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years
under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for six months and a fine of Rs.2000/ each under
Section 323 IPC.
9. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
the appellants filed appeal being Criminal Appeal
No. 109 of 1998 whereas the opposite party filed
Criminal Appeal No.149 of 1998 before the High
Court.
10. By impugned judgment dated 24.04.2008 in
Criminal Appeal No.109/1998, the High Court
disposed of the appeal and modified the order of
the Additional Sessions Judge by reducing the
sentence of the appellants herein under Section
7
307/149 IPC from seven years to five years and
affirmed other sentences and fine.
11. The High Court by judgment dated 03.04.1998
in Criminal Appeal (No.149/1998) filed by the
Complainant’s side partly allowed the appeal and
released the appellants therein on already
undergone sentence period.
12. Against the said judgment, the appellants
herein filed special leave petition before this Court.
This Court by order dated 14.05.2010 dismissed the
special leave petition.
13. Hence, aggrieved by impugned judgment dated
24.04.2007, the appellants have preferred these
appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
14. It is a settled principle of law that when the
Courts below have recorded concurrent findings
against the accused person which are based on due
appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article
8
136 of the Constitution of India would be slow to
interfere in such concurrent findings and would not
appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima
facie shown that both the Courts below did not
either consider the relevant piece of evidence or
there exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the
findings recorded by both the Courts below etc.
15. We, however, made endeavour to peruse the
evidence with a view to find out as to whether the
concurrent findings of both the Courts below have
any kind of infirmity or/and whether the concurrent
findings are capable of being legally and factually
sustainable or need to be reversed. Having gone
through the evidence, we are of the view that the
findings are legally and factually sustainable in law.
16. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the
parties, there is no reason to disbelieve the version
of the injured eyewitnesses inasmuch as we are not
9
able to notice any kind of perversity or contradiction
or inconsistency in their version.
17. The High Court, however, while rightly
affirming the conviction reduced the sentence from
seven years to five years, and, in our opinion, this
relief of reduction of sentence from seven years to
five years for an offence punishable under Section
307 IPC to the appellants is well justified having
regard to the facts situation arising in the case.
Therefore, we do not find any ground to further
reduce the sentence. It is more so when we find that
the appellants had used deadly weapons for
inflicting injuries on the members of the
complainant’s party as detailed in the facts set out
above.
18. We are not impressed by the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants when it was
urged that the appellants had inflicted injuries on
1
the members of the complainant’s party in their
right of private defense. First, this submission did
not find favour to the two courts below and, in our
view, rightly; Second, it being a question of fact, we
are not inclined to again appreciate the evidence so
as to reverse the concurrent findings of fact; and
lastly, this does not appear to be a case where the
appellants can be absolved fully from the
commission of the offence in question in their right
of private defense against the members of the
complainant’s party.
19. In our view, there is an evidence adduced by
the prosecution to prove that the appellants were
armed with the deadly weapons and were the
aggressors in hitting the abovenamed persons with
the weapons due to which injured persons suffered
several injuries.
1
20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are
of the considered view that neither any case of
acquittal and nor any case of further reduction of
jail sentence than what has been awarded by the
High Court is made out in favour of any of the
appellants in both the appeals.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
fail and are accordingly dismissed being devoid of
any merit.
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………...................................J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
New Delhi;
May 11, 2018
1