Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 435
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………..OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.13369 OF 2024 ]
MAUKAM SINGH & OTHERS …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave Granted.
2. Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in
a disputed land, carried out by one of the injured; the
accused, on the instigation of the person who was is
possession of the land, reached the house of the deceased
with weapons and questioned them resulting in a scuffle
ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.02
18:42:10 IST
Reason:
the three grandchildren; as per the story of the
Page 1 of 14
prosecution. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but
only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court
of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the
appellants herein were charged with offences under
Sections 302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the
1
Indian Penal Code . Two were charged under Sections
324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34; who were acquitted
by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment
and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted
under Sections 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, for
the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the
deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year
respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the
Trial Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the
sentence imposed.
1
For brevity ‘IPC’
Page 2 of 14
3. On appeal before this Court, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais
argued that there was no premeditation and no intention
to cause death; not even the remotest knowledge of an
injury being caused which was likely to cause death. In
fact, the deposition of ocular witnesses indicate that the
accused carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on
the deceased, even according to the Doctor who examined
him at the first instance indicates that there were no
incised injuries. It was also stated that the injury which
resulted in death, could have been caused by an
accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances it is
clear that if at all the accused are found guilty of the
alleged crime, they can only be convicted under Part II of
Section 304.
4. Sh. Yashraj Singh Bundela learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State pointed out that the
injured witnesses (eye-witnesses), have spoken in tandem
Page 3 of 14
and it was the accused who trespassed into the house of
the victims; including the deceased, and attacked them.
There was absolutely no provocation on the part of the
victims and it was with premeditation and intention to
cause death that the accused came to the house of the
deceased, armed with deadly weapons. The fact that the
deceased died after 25 days in a hospital, would not result
in a different finding than that of murder, since the single
blow caused to the head of the deceased led to the death.
There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the
conviction for the offences, which charges are found to
have been proved nor is there any reason to alter the
sentence imposed.
5. We have gone through the entire records and
depositions of the witnesses. At the outset, we have to
notice that the ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of
the deceased; which by itself would not result in
eschewing their testimony. It is trite that, merely because
Page 4 of 14
witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to the
interested, especially in a case where there is ocular
testimony. The prosecution unequivocally proved that the
altercation leading to the scuffle occurred in the house of
the deceased, wherein the accused had come with deadly
weapons, clearly with the intention to harm the inmates
of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed
property to offer prayers. That the dispute existed with
reference to the land stands proved by the testimony of
PW-4, a neighbour, who had gone to the house of the
deceased, hearing the commotion. He testified in cross
examination that there was animosity between the
accused and the victims regarding the ownership of the
place of worship.
6. The said statement regarding animosity,
brought out in cross-examination, is noticed by us, fully
realising that, motive of enmity is a doubled edged
weapon. Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation
Page 5 of 14
of false allegation on the part of the complainant to
deliberately implicate the accused. This makes it
imminent that we examine the testimony of witnesses
with a hawk’s eye to understand whether it is truthful or
the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The relationship of the
ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no consequence,
as the possibility of outsiders being available inside the
house of the injured is very remote. It also has to be kept
in mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which
makes their testimony credible and believable
7. PW 1-3 are the grandchildren who, in
consonance with the FIR registered, spoke of the accused
having come to their house with a farsa and luhangi (an
axe and a cutting weapon). The allegation was that the
accused inflicted blows on the deceased, which injury, he
sustained in the mouth and head. PW-1 also claimed that
the first appellant inflicted a blow with the reverse side of
the axe on his brother PW3 which hit him on the head
Page 6 of 14
and legs. PW1 was also hit on the head and hands.
PW11, the Doctor who examined the deceased and the
injured deposed that there were five injuries on the body
of PW1: (i) incised wound on the right side of the head, (ii)
& (iii) abrasion and incised wound on the right side of the
nose, (iv) swelling on the right forearm and (v) contusion
on left knee. This is in consonance with PW1’s testimony.
Contradiction brought out in cross examination is only
that there was no statement made that Panna Lal and
Dashrath Singh, the acquitted accused, had beaten PW1
and his grandfather which was not stated in the Section
161 statement.
8. PW2 stated that the first accused inflicted a
blow with axe on his grandfather, the deceased and the
third accused inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon.
As for his own injuries, he claimed that one of the accused
inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon on his shoulder
and another hit his leg with a lathi. The medical evidence
Page 7 of 14
of PW11 with respect to PW2 indicates abrasion of the
right shoulder and left thumb and abrasion on the left leg;
in consonance with his deposition. PW2 also stated that
the deceased was beaten by all the accused and the first
accused inflicted a blow with the axe and the third
accused hit him with the cutting weapon. The
contradiction brought out clearly indicates that he had
not stated the blow inflicted to the deceased by the first
accused, in his Section 161 statement.
9. PW3 another grandson of the deceased
specifically spoke of the first accused having inflicted a
blow with the reverse side of the axe on the head of the
deceased and the third accused also having inflicted a
blow with the cutting weapon. As far as his own injuries,
he claimed the first accused hit him on the head with an
axe and the third accused hit him on the head, with a
cutting weapon and two other accused having inflicted
blows with the cutting weapon on his leg and on his back.
Page 8 of 14
PW11, the Doctor spoke of PW3 having sustained three
injuries, (i) an incised wound above the right ear, (ii)
abrasion on front side of right knee and (iii) abrasion on
right index finger; which corroborates PW3’s testimony.
10. We have to keep in mind that that there was a
scuffle which ensued after the accused came to the house
of the deceased, with deadly weapons. That they carried
deadly weapons have been spoken of by all the three
ocular witnesses, further corroborated by PW-4, a
neighbour, who spoke of the accused being armed with
an axe and a cutting weapon. The quarrel that ensued
and the scuffle was also spoken of by PW4. The injury
sustained by Than Singh; the deceased, as spoken of by
the eye-witnesses was further corroborated by PW-4 who
had accompanied the injured victims to the hospital. In
cross-examination he specifically stated that he heard the
sound of weeping of women from the neighbouring house
and witnessed the scuffle, on reaching there. We find that
Page 9 of 14
nothing suspicious, to doubt the veracity of the ocular
witnesses, has come out in their depositions either in the
chief-examination or cross.
11. The eye-witnesses; PW’s 1 to 3, who suffered
injuries in the incident spoke of the blow to the head of
the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused
specifically pointed out that there was no cut injury on
the deceased. In the teeth of the testimony of the accused
having carried only cutting weapons; the injury sustained
by the deceased in all probability was caused by a fall.
This absolves the accused especially considering the
testimony of the Doctor that the fatal injury could have
been caused by a fall.
12. The deceased according to PW11, Doctor,
suffered two injuries; both, on the head, one fatal and the
other simple. The two injuries are as follows :
(i) swelling extended from left side of his head
near to left ear extending up to middle of the scalp and
this swelling was also extended up to parietal region
Page 10 of 14
of the head and blood was oozing from left ear and
both nostrils of the nose of Than Singh and for
determining the nature of this injury he advised for x-
ray examination of Than Singh,
ii) lacerated wound on the front and at middle
part of head.
In cross examination, the Doctor deposed that the fatal
injury can be inflicted by a hard and blunt object. It was
also deposed that the fatal injury could be caused by an
accidental fall; which in the context of the specific
corroborated testimony of a reverse hit by the axe is of no
consequence. When a scuffle ensues, it cannot be said
that the witnesses; especially if they were actively involved
in the scuffle and were also injured, would speak of the
minute details of who inflicted the blow, with what
weapon and precisely how it was inflicted. Suffice it to
notice that the ocular witnesses, also injured in the same
transaction, spoke of a blow on the head of the deceased;
their grandfather. The mere fact that PW2 and 3 did not
speak of a reverse hit by an axe in the Section 161
statement cannot lead to their testimony of the overt act
Page 11 of 14
being disbelieved. The embellishment even if ignored, the
overt act stands proved.
13. That, the accused came to the house of the
deceased with the intention of questioning them regarding
the visit made to the deity installed in the disputed
property, has been unequivocally proved by the oral
testimony of witnesses. That, the accused came to the
house armed with deadly weapons also stands
established which clearly points to the premeditation and
the intention to cause injuries which were likely to cause
death. The facts regarding the fight and the overt acts, as
disclosed from the evidence does not commend us to find
an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor falls
under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in
a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The medical evidence, that the injury could be caused
either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an
accidental fall, does not detract from the finding under
Page 12 of 14
Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony;
(i) of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the
house of the victims, (ii) the altercation and fight that
ensued and (iii) the overt acts of the accused, inflicting
injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased and
victims, (iv) totally corroborated by the medical evidence
regarding injuries on the deceased and each of the injured
witnesses; PWs 1 to 3. The fatal injury caused on the
deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the
body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus
is clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by
the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed
into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons
in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims; one
of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow
to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after
a few days, as deposed by the Doctor.
Page 13 of 14
14. We find no reason to interfere with the
conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. The
appeal stands dismissed. The appellants, if on bail, shall
appear and surrender before the Sessions Court, within
two weeks of this order; failing which the Sessions Court
shall take appropriate steps to apprehend them so as to
undergo the sentence awarded.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 2, 2025.
Page 14 of 14
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………..OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.13369 OF 2024 ]
MAUKAM SINGH & OTHERS …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave Granted.
2. Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in
a disputed land, carried out by one of the injured; the
accused, on the instigation of the person who was is
possession of the land, reached the house of the deceased
with weapons and questioned them resulting in a scuffle
ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.04.02
18:42:10 IST
Reason:
the three grandchildren; as per the story of the
Page 1 of 14
prosecution. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but
only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court
of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the
appellants herein were charged with offences under
Sections 302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the
1
Indian Penal Code . Two were charged under Sections
324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34; who were acquitted
by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment
and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted
under Sections 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, for
the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the
deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year
respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the
Trial Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the
sentence imposed.
1
For brevity ‘IPC’
Page 2 of 14
3. On appeal before this Court, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais
argued that there was no premeditation and no intention
to cause death; not even the remotest knowledge of an
injury being caused which was likely to cause death. In
fact, the deposition of ocular witnesses indicate that the
accused carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on
the deceased, even according to the Doctor who examined
him at the first instance indicates that there were no
incised injuries. It was also stated that the injury which
resulted in death, could have been caused by an
accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances it is
clear that if at all the accused are found guilty of the
alleged crime, they can only be convicted under Part II of
Section 304.
4. Sh. Yashraj Singh Bundela learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State pointed out that the
injured witnesses (eye-witnesses), have spoken in tandem
Page 3 of 14
and it was the accused who trespassed into the house of
the victims; including the deceased, and attacked them.
There was absolutely no provocation on the part of the
victims and it was with premeditation and intention to
cause death that the accused came to the house of the
deceased, armed with deadly weapons. The fact that the
deceased died after 25 days in a hospital, would not result
in a different finding than that of murder, since the single
blow caused to the head of the deceased led to the death.
There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the
conviction for the offences, which charges are found to
have been proved nor is there any reason to alter the
sentence imposed.
5. We have gone through the entire records and
depositions of the witnesses. At the outset, we have to
notice that the ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of
the deceased; which by itself would not result in
eschewing their testimony. It is trite that, merely because
Page 4 of 14
witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to the
interested, especially in a case where there is ocular
testimony. The prosecution unequivocally proved that the
altercation leading to the scuffle occurred in the house of
the deceased, wherein the accused had come with deadly
weapons, clearly with the intention to harm the inmates
of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed
property to offer prayers. That the dispute existed with
reference to the land stands proved by the testimony of
PW-4, a neighbour, who had gone to the house of the
deceased, hearing the commotion. He testified in cross
examination that there was animosity between the
accused and the victims regarding the ownership of the
place of worship.
6. The said statement regarding animosity,
brought out in cross-examination, is noticed by us, fully
realising that, motive of enmity is a doubled edged
weapon. Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation
Page 5 of 14
of false allegation on the part of the complainant to
deliberately implicate the accused. This makes it
imminent that we examine the testimony of witnesses
with a hawk’s eye to understand whether it is truthful or
the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The relationship of the
ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no consequence,
as the possibility of outsiders being available inside the
house of the injured is very remote. It also has to be kept
in mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which
makes their testimony credible and believable
7. PW 1-3 are the grandchildren who, in
consonance with the FIR registered, spoke of the accused
having come to their house with a farsa and luhangi (an
axe and a cutting weapon). The allegation was that the
accused inflicted blows on the deceased, which injury, he
sustained in the mouth and head. PW-1 also claimed that
the first appellant inflicted a blow with the reverse side of
the axe on his brother PW3 which hit him on the head
Page 6 of 14
and legs. PW1 was also hit on the head and hands.
PW11, the Doctor who examined the deceased and the
injured deposed that there were five injuries on the body
of PW1: (i) incised wound on the right side of the head, (ii)
& (iii) abrasion and incised wound on the right side of the
nose, (iv) swelling on the right forearm and (v) contusion
on left knee. This is in consonance with PW1’s testimony.
Contradiction brought out in cross examination is only
that there was no statement made that Panna Lal and
Dashrath Singh, the acquitted accused, had beaten PW1
and his grandfather which was not stated in the Section
161 statement.
8. PW2 stated that the first accused inflicted a
blow with axe on his grandfather, the deceased and the
third accused inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon.
As for his own injuries, he claimed that one of the accused
inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon on his shoulder
and another hit his leg with a lathi. The medical evidence
Page 7 of 14
of PW11 with respect to PW2 indicates abrasion of the
right shoulder and left thumb and abrasion on the left leg;
in consonance with his deposition. PW2 also stated that
the deceased was beaten by all the accused and the first
accused inflicted a blow with the axe and the third
accused hit him with the cutting weapon. The
contradiction brought out clearly indicates that he had
not stated the blow inflicted to the deceased by the first
accused, in his Section 161 statement.
9. PW3 another grandson of the deceased
specifically spoke of the first accused having inflicted a
blow with the reverse side of the axe on the head of the
deceased and the third accused also having inflicted a
blow with the cutting weapon. As far as his own injuries,
he claimed the first accused hit him on the head with an
axe and the third accused hit him on the head, with a
cutting weapon and two other accused having inflicted
blows with the cutting weapon on his leg and on his back.
Page 8 of 14
PW11, the Doctor spoke of PW3 having sustained three
injuries, (i) an incised wound above the right ear, (ii)
abrasion on front side of right knee and (iii) abrasion on
right index finger; which corroborates PW3’s testimony.
10. We have to keep in mind that that there was a
scuffle which ensued after the accused came to the house
of the deceased, with deadly weapons. That they carried
deadly weapons have been spoken of by all the three
ocular witnesses, further corroborated by PW-4, a
neighbour, who spoke of the accused being armed with
an axe and a cutting weapon. The quarrel that ensued
and the scuffle was also spoken of by PW4. The injury
sustained by Than Singh; the deceased, as spoken of by
the eye-witnesses was further corroborated by PW-4 who
had accompanied the injured victims to the hospital. In
cross-examination he specifically stated that he heard the
sound of weeping of women from the neighbouring house
and witnessed the scuffle, on reaching there. We find that
Page 9 of 14
nothing suspicious, to doubt the veracity of the ocular
witnesses, has come out in their depositions either in the
chief-examination or cross.
11. The eye-witnesses; PW’s 1 to 3, who suffered
injuries in the incident spoke of the blow to the head of
the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused
specifically pointed out that there was no cut injury on
the deceased. In the teeth of the testimony of the accused
having carried only cutting weapons; the injury sustained
by the deceased in all probability was caused by a fall.
This absolves the accused especially considering the
testimony of the Doctor that the fatal injury could have
been caused by a fall.
12. The deceased according to PW11, Doctor,
suffered two injuries; both, on the head, one fatal and the
other simple. The two injuries are as follows :
(i) swelling extended from left side of his head
near to left ear extending up to middle of the scalp and
this swelling was also extended up to parietal region
Page 10 of 14
of the head and blood was oozing from left ear and
both nostrils of the nose of Than Singh and for
determining the nature of this injury he advised for x-
ray examination of Than Singh,
ii) lacerated wound on the front and at middle
part of head.
In cross examination, the Doctor deposed that the fatal
injury can be inflicted by a hard and blunt object. It was
also deposed that the fatal injury could be caused by an
accidental fall; which in the context of the specific
corroborated testimony of a reverse hit by the axe is of no
consequence. When a scuffle ensues, it cannot be said
that the witnesses; especially if they were actively involved
in the scuffle and were also injured, would speak of the
minute details of who inflicted the blow, with what
weapon and precisely how it was inflicted. Suffice it to
notice that the ocular witnesses, also injured in the same
transaction, spoke of a blow on the head of the deceased;
their grandfather. The mere fact that PW2 and 3 did not
speak of a reverse hit by an axe in the Section 161
statement cannot lead to their testimony of the overt act
Page 11 of 14
being disbelieved. The embellishment even if ignored, the
overt act stands proved.
13. That, the accused came to the house of the
deceased with the intention of questioning them regarding
the visit made to the deity installed in the disputed
property, has been unequivocally proved by the oral
testimony of witnesses. That, the accused came to the
house armed with deadly weapons also stands
established which clearly points to the premeditation and
the intention to cause injuries which were likely to cause
death. The facts regarding the fight and the overt acts, as
disclosed from the evidence does not commend us to find
an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor falls
under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in
a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The medical evidence, that the injury could be caused
either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an
accidental fall, does not detract from the finding under
Page 12 of 14
Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony;
(i) of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the
house of the victims, (ii) the altercation and fight that
ensued and (iii) the overt acts of the accused, inflicting
injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased and
victims, (iv) totally corroborated by the medical evidence
regarding injuries on the deceased and each of the injured
witnesses; PWs 1 to 3. The fatal injury caused on the
deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the
body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus
is clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by
the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed
into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons
in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims; one
of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow
to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after
a few days, as deposed by the Doctor.
Page 13 of 14
14. We find no reason to interfere with the
conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. The
appeal stands dismissed. The appellants, if on bail, shall
appear and surrender before the Sessions Court, within
two weeks of this order; failing which the Sessions Court
shall take appropriate steps to apprehend them so as to
undergo the sentence awarded.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 2, 2025.
Page 14 of 14