Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2024 INSC 308
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1258 OF 2010
RAMVIR @ SAKET SINGH .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated
th
27 July, 2007 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior whereby Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 1998 filed
by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated
th th
9 November, 1998 passed by the V Upper Sessions Judge,
Bhind, Madhya Pradesh(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial
Court’) in Session Case No. 70 of 1987 was upheld.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.04.16
16:28:33 IST
Reason:
1
th
2. Vide judgment and order dated 9 November, 1998, the
learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as
below: -
(i) Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,
1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’): Life
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default two
months rigorous imprisonment (for the murder of
Kaptan Singh).
(ii) Under Section 307 IPC: five years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default one
month rigorous imprisonment [for the attempted
murder of Indal Singh (PW-12)]
3. The details of evidence and relevant facts are narrated in the
th th
judgments dated 9 November, 1998 and 27 July, 2007 passed
by the trial Court and the High Court respectively and hence, need
not be repeated.
4. The appellant herein was tried for the murders of Kaptan
Singh and Kalyan Singh which took place in two separate incidents
and for the attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12) in the incident
in which Kaptan Singh was killed. Both these incidents took place
2
th
in village Bhajai, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh on 10
November, 1985.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide
th
judgment dated 9 November, 1998 acquitted the accused
appellant from the charge of murder of Kalyan Singh holding that
the two eyewitnesses who deposed against the appellant for the
said incident, namely, Surajbeti(PW-5) and Hiraman(PW-6) were
not reliable witnesses as they had not named the accused
appellant in the statements made before the Investigating Officer
(PW-18) being Exhibit D-5 and Exhibit D-6. However, placing
reliance on the testimony of Raj Kumari(PW-7), Indal Singh(PW-
12)(injured eyewitness) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14), the learned trial
Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above
for the commission of murder of Kaptan Singh and attempted
murder of Indal Singh(PW-12).
6. It may be noted here that the appellant herein is reported to
have suffered more than 14 years of substantive imprisonment and
nearly 22 years imprisonment with remission. However, his prayer
for grant of premature release/remission is not being considered
on account of pendency of appeal.
3
7. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel representing the
appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the entire
prosecution case is false and fabricated. In the very same incident
in which Kaptan Singh (deceased) was killed and Indal Singh(PW-
12) received injuries by fire arm, two persons from the side of
accused appellant, namely, Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv
Singh received gun shot injuries and expired. As per Shri Parekh,
the prosecution witnesses failed to offer any explanation for the
fatal injuries caused to Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh
and thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not
trustworthy and reliable.
8. Learned senior counsel further contended that a cross case
was registered against six persons from the complainant side
including Indal Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14) and they
were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 396 IPC and thus, it is established beyond all manner of
doubt that the members of the complainant party were the
aggressors. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the case of
prosecution is fit to be discarded on two counts; (i) that the fatal
injuries caused to two members of the accused side namely,
Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh were not explained by the
4
prosecution witnesses and; (ii) members of the complainant party
having been convicted in the cross case, it is trite they were the
aggressors and thus, the accused appellant deserves to be
acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt as well as by giving
him the benefit of right of private defence.
9. It was further contended that in an incident involving
extensive cross firing, the accused appellant did not receive a
single injury and thus it is clear that the prosecution witnesses
have not come out with the true version of the incident and their
evidence is tainted and unworthy of reliance.
10. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the evidence
of Ramraj Singh(PW-14) was not relied upon by the High Court.
11. It was further submitted that Raj Kumari(PW-7) and Indal
Singh(PW-12) are interested partisan witnesses and are closely
related to the deceased Kaptan Singh and hence, their evidence
should not be accepted in absence of corroboration. On these
grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the
charges.
5
12 . Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the parties
and have gone through the impugned judgment and also
scrutinized the evidence available on record.
14. We may, at the outset, note that insofar as the Sessions Case
No. 68 of 1986 wherein six persons from the complainant side were
convicted by the trial Court is concerned, it is stricto senso not a
cross case because the charge against those who stood trial in the
aforesaid case was for the offence punishable under Section 396
IPC registered with the allegation of snatching the gun from
Chutallu @ Ram Mohan. Thereafter, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) fired
gun shots at Chutallu @ Ram Mohan causing him fatal injuries. At
that time, Govind Singh and Udai Singh had also fired gun shots
at Shiv Singh, who was standing on the platform of the house of
Chhutkan Singh. Shiv Singh fell down on the spot and died as a
result thereof. These six persons were convicted by the trial Court
for commission of offence under Section 396 IPC vide its judgment
th
dated 9 November, 1998.
6
15. It is further noteworthy that the Criminal Appeal No. 582 of
1998 preferred by six persons including Indal Singh(PW-12) and
Ramraj Singh(PW-14) was allowed by the High Court vide
th
judgment dated 27 July, 2007 and all of them were acquitted of
th
the charge while setting aside the judgment dated 9 November,
1998 rendered by the learned trial Court.
16. On a threadbare reappreciation of the evidence available on
record, we find that there is no dispute on the aspect that the
incident wherein Kaptan Singh was killed took place in front of the
house of Kaptan Singh.
17. There is also no dispute that Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and
Shiv Singh received injuries in the very same incident which
resulted in their death. The defence case is that the gun held by
Chutallu @ Ram Mohan was snatched by the members of the
complainant party and thereafter, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) fired a
gun shot at Chutallu @ Ram Mohan injuring him in stomach and
back.
18. The prosecution has come up with a clear case that when
Indal Singh(PW-12) saw the assailants, i.e., the appellant herein
and his two companions(Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh)
firing towards deceased Kaptan Singh, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) and
7
his camel, Indal Singh(PW-12) used his licensed weapons to fire at
the assailants in self-defence and in defence of Ramraj Singh(PW-
14) and Kaptan Singh. The gun shots fired by Ramraj Singh(PW-
14) and Indal Singh(PW-12) resulted into the death of Chutallu @
Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh.
19. The evidence of Indal Singh(PW-12) and Raj Kumari(PW-7) is
categoric on the aspect that the gun shots fired by accused
appellant herein struck deceased Kaptan Singh on his stomach
and chest, etc.
20. Indal Singh(PW-12) has come out with a clear case in his
examination-in-chief explaining the manner in which Chutallu @
Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh received fatal gun shot injuries. His
testimony could not be impeached despite extensive cross-
examination. The allegation made by Indal Singh (PW-12)
regarding the accused appellant having fired gun shots at Kaptan
Singh is duly corroborated by presence of gun shot injuries on his
body as deposed by the Medical Jurist Dr. Rakesh Sharma(PW-
11).
21. The trial Court as well as the High Court, after thorough
appreciation of evidence available on record, discarded the
prosecution case regarding the charge of murder of Kalyan Singh
8
attributed to the appellant by holding that the testimonies of two
eyewitnesses Surajbeti(PW-5) and Hiraman(PW-6) were not
reliable.
22. However, the learned trial Court placed reliance on the
evidence of three eyewitnesses i.e. Raj Kumari(PW-7), Indal
Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14) so as to hold the accused
appellant guilty of the charge of murder of Kaptan Singh and the
attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12). The High Court,
however, concluded that the trial Court had disbelieved the
evidence of witness Ramraj Singh(PW-14). Though, this finding is
erroneous but the High Court discarded the evidence of Ramraj
Singh(PW-14) holding it to be not trustworthy based on the
reasoning that he did not state as to what had caused injuries to
Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh. Furthermore, even
though this witness claimed to have received gun shot injuries at
the hands of the accused appellant but he was not medically
examined. Therefore, the evidence of Ramraj Singh(PW-14) was
rightly discarded by the High Court.
23. The presence of the other two eyewitnesses i.e. Raj
Kumari(PW-7) and Indal Singh(PW-12) at house of Kaptan Singh
9
at the time of his murder was not disputed by the learned counsel
for the appellant.
24. Having gone through the evidence of both the witnesses i.e. ,
Raj Kumari(PW-7) and Indal Singh(PW-12), we also find that
nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination which creates
a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding presence of these
witnesses at the crime scene.
25. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant
that these witnesses are partisan witnesses as being closely related
to the deceased and hence their evidence should be discarded,
does not for a moment, convince us because in a case involving
gruesome broad daylight double murder by repeated gun firing, it
is unlikely that any of the persons from the neighbourhood, would
have the courage to step forward as witnesses. Even otherwise,
Indal Singh(PW-12) himself received injuries in the same incident.
He has truthfully accepted his role in the incident stating that he
fired the gun shots which hit two assailants namely, Chutallu @
Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh leading to their death. Hence, clearly
the prosecution has given thorough explanation for the injuries
received by persons from the side of the accused.
10
th
26. The High Court vide judgment dated 27 July, 2007, in the
cross case, which was registered against six persons from the
complainant party including Indal Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj
Singh(PW-14), acquitted these six persons holding that the
members of the accused party of the present case were the
aggressors and that the injuries which resulted into death of
Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh were caused by Indal
Singh(PW-12) and his companions in exercise of their right of
private defence. The said finding has not been challenged and has
thus attained finality.
27. The trivial contradictions sought to be highlighted by learned
senior counsel for the appellant regarding absence of empty
cartridges etc. at the place of incident and the plea of alibi is not
tenable because we find that these contradictions are far too trivial
so as to discard the entire prosecution case which is based on
reliable and trustworthy set of eye witnesses whose evidence is
corroborated by the evidence of the Medical Jurist and other
attending circumstances.
28. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity
warranting interference. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and
is dismissed as such.
11
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
April 16, 2024
12