Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1007 OF 2008
AMAR SINGH JATAV & ANR. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Accused No.5 (Amarg Singh Jatav) and
Accused No.6 (Himanshu Mishra) are the appellants
before us in this appeal against the judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Judicature of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal
No.1358 of 1995, dated 03.10.2005. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the
JUDGMENT
judgment and order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No.111 of
1993, dated 25.01.1994.
2. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are police
constables. They, along with two others, had
arrested one Gunda @ Bhuta, as a suspect, in
pursuance of the report filed by one Girdhari for
Page 1
2
an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). While investigating
the said report, they had taken Gunda @ Bhuta from
the Betul police station to Gajpur village for the
purpose of further investigation of the said
report. It is the case of the appellants that when
Gunda @ Bhuta was taken for the purpose of recovery
of murder weapon in the field of Girdhari, Girdhari
assaulted Gunda @ Bhuta with lathi and kurfi and
thereby caused nearly 13 grievous injuries. As a
result of the injuries, according to the
appellants, Gunda @ Bhuta died while he was being
carried away in the jeep from Gajpur village to
Betul police station.
JUDGMENT
3. The Prosecution has examined nearly 12
witnesses in support of their case. The Trial
Judge, after appreciating the evidence and the
materials on record, has disbelieved the case of
the Prosecution and accordingly has acquitted the
appellants for offences under Section 302 of the
IPC.
Page 2
3
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
order, the State of Madhya Pradesh had appealed
before the High Court. The High Court once again
perused and appreciated the evidence and the
materials on record. Thereafter the High Court, in
our opinion, rightly thought it fit to reverse the
finding of the Trial Court and convicted the
appellants for offences under Section 304 Part-II
of the I.P.C.
5. We have heard in extenso Shri.B.K.Satija,
learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Vibha
Datta Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent-
State. We have also carefully perused the
judgments and orders of the Trial Court as also of
the High Court. We have also considered the
JUDGMENT
evidence that was recorded by the Trial Court. In
our opinion, the High Court was justified in all
respects to reverse the finding of acquittal of the
appellants. Since we do not find any legal
infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the
High Court, we do not intend to interfere with the
said judgment. Accordingly, the appeal requires to
be dismissed and it is dismissed.
Page 3
4
6. We are informed that the appellants are on
bail pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on
07.07.2008. Now, we direct that the bail bonds of
the accused persons be cancelled and the accused
persons be taken into custody forthwith to serve
out the remaining period of the sentence awarded by
the High Court.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
JUDGMENT
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
Page 4