Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1314 OF 2013
Satya Raj Singh …Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
2464 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein
and upheld the judgment dated 30.08.2000 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial
Signature Not Verified
No.690/1999 by which the appellant was found guilty of
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.28
15:42:53 IST
Reason:
1
the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
“IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and
a fine of Rs.1000/, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three
months.
2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this
appeal, relevant facts need mention in brief infra .
3. Three accused persons, namely, Satya Raj Singh
(appellant herein), Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu
Dayal were prosecuted for committing murder of one
person called Bhaiya alias Narendra under Section
302/34 IPC.
4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Katna by his
judgment/order dated 30.08.2000 found the appellant–
Satya Raj Singh guilty for commission of murder of
Bhaiya alias Narendra and accordingly convicted him
under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to
2
undergo life imprisonment. So far as other two accused
namely, Santosh and Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal are
concerned, both were acquitted of the charge.
5. The appellant – Satya Raj Singh felt aggrieved
and filed criminal appeal in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur. So far as the State is concerned,
no appeal was filed against that part of the order of the
Additional Sessions Judge by which two other accused,
namely, Santosh and Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal were
acquitted. In this way, the order of acquittal of Santosh
and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal became final.
6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the
appeal filed by Satya Raj Singh, which has given rise to
filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in
this Court only by the appellantSatya Raj Singh.
7. The case set up by the prosecution against the
accused persons and which was proved against the
appellant is as follows.
3
8. The incident occurred on 19.09.1999 around 7
p.m. in village Imaliya. Four persons namely, Bhaiya
alias Narendra (deceased), Ravindra Singh (PW1),
Jhallu alias Mahendra (PW3) and Argent alias Prabhu
Dayal were sitting on the platform (small place in front
of house) of one Uli Singh. They were chatting with
each other.
9. At that time, the appellant along with Santosh
came there and expressed his wish to talk to Argent
alias Prabhu Dayal. The trio then went near to the
house of one Abhay Raj Singh alias Daddu.
10. Argent alias Prabhu Dayal then came back and
called Bhaiya alias Narendra (deceased) for two minutes
to have some talk. Bhaiya, however, replied that he has
to go to his house to serve cow. Argent alias Prabhu
Dayal then said to Bhaiya that there is some important
urgent matter, which he has to talk with him and,
therefore, he should come with him.
4
11. Bhaiya accordingly went to participate in the talk
with Argent alias Prabhu Dayal. At that time, Jhallu,
who was still sitting on the platform, told Ravindra
Singh that they had to go to the market to purchase
some items. Ravindra Singh and Jhallu accordingly left
for the market. When they were proceeding towards the
market and reached near the house of Abhay Raj Singh,
they saw Satya Raj Singh (appellant herein) assaulting
Bhaiya alias Narendra with Gupti (a kind of knife) on
his neck and its nearby whereas Argent alias Prabhu
Dayal and Santosh were standing near to him.
12. On seeing them, Satya Raj Singh (appellant
herein) and Santosh both ran away from the spot.
Jhallu seeing the incident ran towards Bhaiya alias
Narendra (deceased) whereas Ravindra ran behind
Satya Raj Singh. After covering some distance, both
Satya Raj Singh and Santosh turned back and
5
threatened Jhallu and Ravindra not to chase them else
they would assault them also.
13. Out of fear both gave up their chase and returned
back. Injured Bhaiya was then taken to the house of
Abhay Raj Singh because the incident had occurred
near to his house.
14. Thereafter on next day morning, i.e., 20.09.1999,
Ravindra (PW1) lodged an FIR at Police Station
Badwara, District Katni on the basis of which crime
case No.108/1999 for commission of offence punishable
under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. The appellant
hereinSatya Raj Singh, Santosh and Argent alias
Prabhu Dayal were apprehended and put to trial for
commission of the aforesaid offence. Investigation was
carried out. Statements of several persons were
recorded. Seizure of items was also made. Postmortem
report was obtained and then chargesheet was filed.
The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
6
15. The prosecution, in support of its case,
examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statements of
accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “ the Cr.P.C.”)
proceedings.
16. As mentioned above, the Additional Sessions
Judge by his judgment/order dated 30.08.2000
convicted the appellant – Satya Raj Singh for
commission of the offence punishable under Section
302/34 IPC and awarded him life imprisonment but
acquitted Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal of the
charges.
17. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal in
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against his
conviction and sentence. By impugned order, the High
Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction
and sentence awarded to the appellant giving rise to
7
filing of the present appeal by the accused Satya Raj
Singh in this Court.
18. The question, which arises for consideration in
this appeal, is whether both the Courts below (Sessions
Court and the High Court) were justified in convicting
the appellant for commission of the offence of murder of
deceased Bhaiya alias Narendra.
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in this appeal.
20. At the outset, we may take note of one legal
principle which consistently reiterated by this Court
since inception that it is not the function of this Court
to reassess evidence and an argument on a point of fact
which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail
the appellants in this Court ( see observation of the
learned Judge Saiyid Fazl Ali, J. while speaking for the
8
Bench in vs. , AIR
Lachhman Singh and others State
1952 SC 167).
21. Yet, we perused the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and also the judgments of the two Courts
below with a view to find out as to whether both the
Courts were justified in convicting the appellant for
commission of the offence in question.
22. Before the High Court, the appellant (accused
Satya Raj Singh) had assailed the judgment/order of the
Additional Sessions Judge on two grounds.
23. One was that the Additional Sessions Judge erred
in believing the testimony of those witnesses who were
cited by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to the incident
and second since the FIR was lodged by the
complainant (PW1) very late, therefore, the entire case
of the prosecution becomes doubtful and weak qua the
appellant and lastly, on appreciation of the evidence of
9
the socalled eyewitnesses, no case is made out by the
prosecution against the appellant.
24. The same argument, which was unsuccessfully
urged before the High Court, was again pressed in
service before this Court by the appellant to question
the legality and correctness of the order of conviction
and sentence but having appreciated the submissions,
we find no merit in any of them. In our view, the High
Court was right in repelling these submissions and
upholding the appellant's conviction.
25. The evidence of PW1Ravindra Singh, Jhallu
alias Mahendra (PW3), Ram Shankar (PW2), Gitabai
(PW6) and Abhay Raj (PW4) proved the prosecution
case beyond reasonable doubt.
26. So far as the evidence of PW1 and PW3 are
concerned, they actually saw the incident and stated
that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his neck
and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed that both
10
of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the
assault made by the appellant.
27. So far as the evidence of PW4 (Abhay Raj) is
concerned, he was the person in whose house the
deceased was brought in injured condition soon after
the incident and where he died. PW4 also saw the
condition of the deceased and the nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased.
28. So far as the evidence of PW6 is concerned, she
being the sister of deceased rushed to the house of
Abhay Raj on being informed of the incident where
Bhaiya alias Narendra was lying in an injured condition.
She deposed that on seeing her Bhaiya hugged her and
told that the appellant had assaulted him. After some
time, Bhaiya succumbed to his injuries.
29. Reading the evidence of the abovementioned
witnesses has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
assault on Bhaiya Narendra the deceased was
alias
11
made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area.
PW5, Dr. R. Sidha, also confirmed the injuries, its
nature and the area where the injuries were sustained
by the deceased in his postmortem report.
30. We have not been able to notice any inconsistent
or contradictory version between these witnesses, which
may persuade us to disbelieve their evidence on any
material issue. In our view, their testimony being
natural and consistent and without any contradiction as
against the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to
be believed.
31. As rightly held by the High Court, some minor
contradictions here and there without affecting the
substance of their statements could not be made basis
to reject their entire testimony. We, therefore, agree with
the reasoning of the High Court.
32. So far as the next argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant, that since there was delay in
12
filing of FIR, the prosecution case should not be
believed, is concerned, it was also rightly repelled by the
High Court.
33. It is not in dispute that the incident in question
occurred around 7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas the
FIR was lodged by PW1 on the next day, i.e.,
20.09.1999 at around 9 a.m. It is also not in dispute
that the Police Station was around 25 KM away from the
place of occurrence.
34. In our opinion, since Bhaiya died after few hours
of the incident and by that time it was dark night, it
was, therefore, not possible for the complainant to go to
the Police Station which was around 25 KM away from
the place of occurrence immediately in the night to lodge
the report/FIR. In these circumstances, if PW1 left for
lodging report/FIR on the next day morning and lodged
the report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannot be said that
there was delay in lodging the report/FIR.
13
35. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere
with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
two Courts below which, in our view, rightly held the
appellant guilty for commission of the offence in
question.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
………………………………..J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
..………………………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
January 28, 2019
14