Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
MATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/10/1991
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 49 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 425
1992 SCC Supl. (1) 406 JT 1991 (4) 145
1991 SCALE (2)798
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 136--Criminal ap-
peal-Concurrent findings of fact-Interference by Supreme
Court---Circumstances indicated.
Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302/34---Conviction
under --Appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court in
appeal-Non-inclusion of appellant’s names in the paper
wherein deceased wrote the name of assailant and inquest
report---Inconsistency of witness Evidence on appellant’s
participation--Held guilt of the appellants-accused not
proved.
HEADNOTE:
According to the prosecution, when the deceased a peti-
tion-writer, was sleeping in a room with his wife (PW.19) on
the iII-fated night, he heard someone knocking at the door.
The deceased switched on the light and opened the door. The
accused (A.1 and A.2) entered his room. They whipped up
their knives and gave stab wounds; one on the chest, another
on the hack while bending. They also slapped and listed the
deceased.
It was further stated that the second appellant (A 5)
caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the wall
repeatedly. PW19 tried to save her husband but she was
pushed aside. During the course of the occurrence, a gold
’PUTRI’ which PW 19 was wearing, was attempted to be
snatched away from her.
The eldest daughter of the deceased, PW 1, who was
sleeping in a room on the first floor, on hearing the cry,
got down and saw the appellants and the other accused leav-
ing her father’s room. The appellants while running away
took with them a box containing some clothes and other
articles belonging to PW 1 and chained the doors in such a
way that the other inmates of the house could not reach the
spot.
The deceased’s son, PW 3, who was sleeping in another
room reached the spot. PW 15, a tenant in an adjoining room
on hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out of
his room but he could not do
426
so as the house was chained from outside. He came to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
spot after the door was opened.
All the witnesses saw bleeding injuries on the body of
the deceased who was unable to speak. PW 3, at the instance
of his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of paper on
which the injured deceased wrote ’Gulab Chand’ and thereaf-
ter became unconscious, and he was then taken to the Govern-
ment hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
The two appellants (A4 and A5 before the Trial Court)
along with three others were tried u/s. 302 IPC or u/s.
302/149 and u/s. 396, for causing the death of the deceased,
accused No. 2 stabbing the deceased with a knife and the
rest of the accused assaulting him and for committing the
offence of dacoity.
The Trial Court found the third accused not guilty of
any of the charges and acquitted him but convicted others
u/s. 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to
undergo imprisonment for life, and acquitted them of the
offence u/s. 396 IPC.
The High Court confirmed the conviction. The present two
appellants (A4, A5) filed the present appeal against the
judgment of the High Court through special leave.
The other two accused (A1 and A2) preferred a separate
special leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court.
Allowing the appeal of the two accused (A4, A5), this Court,
HELD: 1. The powers of the Supreme Court under Article
136 of the Constitution are wide but in criminal appeals,
this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings
of fact, save in exceptional circumstances. [430 H]
2. Within the restrictions imposed by itself, this Court
has the undoubted power to interfere even with findings of
the fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquit-
tal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those
findings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. [431
C]
Arunachalam v. PSR Sadhananthan, [1979] 2 SCC 297; State of
427
Madras v.A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, [1958] SCR 580; Himachal
Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, [1972]1 SCC 249,
referred to.
3.01 The deceased was a petition writer and so in that
capacity he was very well conversant as to how to draft a
complaint. He asked for a pen and paper, and wrote the name,
’Gulab Chand’, evidently thereby saying that Gulab Chand was
the assailant. The deceased had not written any other name
except the name of Gulab Chand. Now the explanation given by
the prosecution is that the deceased became unconscious
after writing this one name Gulab Chand, thereby saying had
he not become unconscious, probably he would have written
the name of other assailants also. [431 E-F]
3.02. PW 19 the wife of the deceased, was sleeping in
the same room in which the deceased was sleeping did not
inform either PW 1 or PW 2 the names of the assailants but
she gave the names only to PW 3, her son. It transpires from
the evidence of PW 19 that after PW 1 went to fetch the
rickshaw, PW 3 asked his father as to who had assailed him
and that it was only thereafter the injured deceased wrote
the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of paper. Before the
deceased wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of paper
given by his son, PW 3, no one including PW 19 came forward
with the names of the assailants. [431 F-G]
3.03. The evidence of PW 2 and 19 indicated that PW 3
was not informed of the names of the assailants before his
father (the deceased) wrote the name of Gulab Chand. Till
the deceased wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of
paper evidently PW 3 did not know as to who the assailant or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
assailants was/were. [432 F]
3.04. The Courts below have not approached this signifi-
cant aspect of this salient feature in the proper perspec-
tive. [432 G]
3.05. In the inquest report there is a specific averment
that the two assailants namely, Gulab Singh (A.2) and Gulab
Chand (A.1) stabbed the deceased with knives which case
alone fits in with the earlier statements of PWs 2 and 19 as
well as the version of the deceased in Exh. P. 50. If really
the names of the two appellants had been mentioned by the
witnesses, those names also would have been specifically
mentioned in Exh. P. 24, the inquest report. [433 B-C]
428
3.06. It is in evidence that both the appellants were
present at the scene of occurrence when the police constable
came, but none pointed out to the police that these two
appellants also participated in the crime. The prosecution
has not satisfactorily established the guilt of the two
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. [433 F, 434 B]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 624
of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1979 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 498 of
1977.
Frank Anthony, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain and
R.V. Singh for the Appellants.
U.N. Bachhavat, Uma Nath Singh and J.M. Sood for the Respon-
dent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
These two appellants, namely, Mathura Prashad and Binda
Prashad have preferred this appeal questioning the correct-
ness and legality of the judgment rendered in Criminal
Appeal No. 498/77 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur Bench. These two appellants (A4 and A5 before the
Trial Court) along with three others, namely, Gulab Chand
and Gulab Singh and Laxman Rao (who were arrayed as accused
Nos. 1 to 3) took their trial on the accusation that on the
night intervening 5/6.12.75 at about 12.30 a.m. at Sarkanda,
Bilaspur within the limits of Bilaspur Police Station, Civil
Lines intentionally caused the death of the deceased, Keshav
Singh by Gulab Singh stabbing the deceased with a knife and
the rest of the people assaulting him and that in the course
of the same transaction, they also committed the offence of
dacoity. Under the above accusation, they were tried for
offences punishable u/s 302 IPC in the alternative u/s 302
IPC read with 149 IPC and also for offence u/s 396 IPC. The
Trial Court found the third accused, namely, Laxman Rao not
guilty of any of the charges and consequently, acquitted him
but convicted these two appellants and accused Nos. 1 and 2
who are not before us u/s 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced
each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. However, the
Trial Court acquitted the appellants and the other two
accused of the offence u/s 396 IPC.
On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,
the convicted accused namely, these two appellants, Gulab
Chand and Gulab Singh filed
429
an appeal before the High Court which for the reasons men-
tioned in its judgment, dismissed the appeal confirming the
conviction recorded by the Trial Court. Challenging this
judgment, these two appellants filed their SLP No. 1902/79
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
and the other two convicted accused, namely, Gulab Chand and
Gulab Singh (A1 and A2) filed a separate petition in SLP
(Crl.) No. 1435/79. This Court by an order dated 29.10.79
granted leave so far as SLP filed by these two appellants,
but dismissed the SLP filed by the first and the second
accused namely, Gulab Chand and Gulab Singh. Hence, the
present appeal by these two appellants.
The facts of the case which led to the filing of this
appeal are well set out in the judgments of the Trial Court
and the High Court and hence we think that it is not neces-
sary for us to proliferate the same except to refer to
certain salient features relevant for the disposal of this
appeal.
The deceased Keshav Singh was a petition writer. He
was living in his house at Sarkanda in Bilaspur with his
wife Smt. Phatokan Bai (PW 19) and two daughters, namely,
Anjani Bai (PW 1) and Shail Kumari (PW 2) and his son, Ram
Kumar (PW 3) who was younger to PW 1 and eider to PW 2.
There were some tenants in different parts of that house.
The accused Gulab Chand occupied a portion of that house as
a tenant, but vacated the same about two months before this
occurrence due to frequent quarrels between the children and
ladies of the families belonging to Gulab Chand and that of
the deceased. It is alleged that the wife of Gulab Chand had
complained about some alleged misbehaviour of the deceased
with her. According to the prosecution, when the deceased
was sleeping in a room with his wife on the iII-fated night,
he heard someone knocking at the door. On this, the deceased
switched on the light and opened the door. This appellant
and the other accused entered his room. Gulab Chand and
Gulab Singh whipped up their knives and gave stab wounds;
one on the chest, another on the back while bending. These
two appellants slapped and fisted the deceased. It is fur-
ther stated that the second appellant herein, namely, Binda
Singh caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the
wall repeatedly. PW 19 tried to save her husband but she was
pushed aside. During the course of the occurrence, a gold
’PUTRI’ which PW 19 was wearing, was attempted to be
snatched away from her.
PW 1 who was sleeping in a room on the first floor, on
hearing the cry, got down and saw these appellants and the
other accused leaving her father’s room. It is alleged that
the appellant while running away took with them a box con-
taining some clothes and other articles belonging to PW 1.
According to the prosecution, the appellants had chained the
doors in such a way that the other inmates of the house
could not reach the spot.
430
After the appellants had fled away, PW 1 opened the
doors. PW 3 who was sleeping in another room reached the
spot. PW 15 was a tenant in an adjoining room and he on
hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out of his
room but he could not do so as the house was chained from
outside. Therefore, PW 15 shouted for opening the latches of
the door. He came to the spot after the door was opened. One
Ramji Dayal who seemed to have played an important role in
the prosecution, also reached the spot but he has not been
examined by the prosecution as a witness. All the witnesses
saw bleeding injuries on the body of Keshav Singh (the
deceased herein) who was unable to speak. PW 3, at the
instance of his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of
paper on which the injured Keshav Singh wrote ’Gulab Chand’
and thereafter became unconscious. The injured Keshav Singh
was then taken to the Government hospital at Bilaspur where
he succumbed to his injuries. The medical officer sent a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
requisition Ex. P 14 to the police station. PW 19, by then,
lodged the first information report Exh. P 43 at about 3.00
a.m. on 6.12.75 before PW 21. PW 21 held inquest and pre-
pared the inquest report Exh. P 24. During the course of the
investigation, he has seized Ex. P.50, the paper on which
the deceased had written the name ’Gulab Chand’ on being
produced by PW 3. PW 9, the medical officer who conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, found two stab
wounds and one incised wound on the person of the deceased.
PW 8, another medical officer examined accused Gulab Singh
and found on his person a small incised wound at the base of
the index finger on the palmer aspect. After completing the
investigation, the charge sheet was laid against all the
accused persons.
As aforementioned, the trial court convicted the four
accused inclusive of these two appellants which conviction
was confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by these
two appellants.
Of the witnesses examined, PWs 1, 2 and 19 speak about
the participation of the appellants in the perpetration of
this heinous crime. No doubt both the Courts below have
concurrently found that these two appellants and the other
two accused 1 and 2 were responsible for causing the death
of the deceased and consequently convicted and so, the
question would be whether this Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
will be justified in interfering with the concurrent find-
ings of fact.
This Court in Balam Ram v. State of U.P. 11975] 3 SCC
219 at 227 held, that the powers of the Supreme Court under
Article 1.36 of the Constitution are wide but in criminal
appeals, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. The
431
scope of interference by this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India in a case of concurrent findings of
fact arose in Arunachalam v. PSR Sadhanathan, [1979] 2 SCC
297 wherein this Court has held that "Article 136 of the
Constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with a
plenitude of plenary appellate power over all Courts and
Tribunals in India. The power is plenary in the sense that
there are no words under Article 136 itself qualifying that
power. But, the very nature of the power has led the Court
to set limits to itself within which to exercise such power.
It is now the well established practice of this Court to
permit the invocation of the power under Article 136 only in
very exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of
general public importance arises or a decision shocks the
conscience of the Court. But, within the restrictions im-
posed by itself, this Court has the undoubted power to
interfere even with findings of the fact, making no distinc-
tion between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the
High Court, in arriving at those findings had acted "per-
versely or otherwise improperly". (See State of Madras v.A.
Vaidyanatha Iyer [1958] SCR 580 and Himachal Pradesh Admin-
istration v. Om Prakash, [1972] 1 SCC 249. We think that it
is not necessary to swell this judgment by citing all the
decisions relating to this principle of law.
When the facts and circumstances of the case are scruti-
nised, in our considered opinion, they do compel this Court
to interfere on the ground that the findings of the Courts
below suffer from the vice of perversity. I1 is the admitted
case that the deceased was a petition writer - and so in
that capacity he was very well conversant as to how to draft
a complaint. He asked for a pen and paper, and wrote the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
name, ’Gulab Chand’, evidently thereby saying that Gulab
Chand was the assailant. The deceased had not written any
other name except the name of Gulab Chand. Now the explana-
tion given by the prosecution is that the deceased became
unconscious after writing this one name Gulab Chand, thereby
saying had he not become unconscious, probably he would have
written the names of other assailants also. But we have to
test this evidence in the background of the evidence given
by other witnesses namely PWs ’1, 2 and 19. PW 19 who is
none other than the wife of the deceased, was sleeping in
the same room in which the deceased was sleeping and, there-
fore, she must be the proper and natural witness and her
evidence has to be given credence. PW 19 admittedly did not
inform either PW 1 or PW 2 the names of the assailants but
she gave the names only to PW 3, her son. It transpires from
the evidence of PW 19 that after PW 1 went to fetch the
rickshaw, PW 3 asked his father as to who had assailed him
’and that it was only thereafter the injured Keshav Singh
wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of paper. The
relevant portion of the evidence of PW 19 reads as follows:
432
Then Ram Kumar asked my husband as to who had
assaulted and he asked for a pen and paper.
Ram Kumar brought a paper and pen and my
husband could write on it the name of Gulab
Chand.
In this connection, evidence of PW 2 may also be re-
ferred to which is as follows:
"Then at this stage, my brother asked him as
to who had assaulted him. My father asked by a
sign of hand for a pen and paper, whereupon my
brother brought the pen and paper and gave
that to my father. My father wrote on it by
his hand; he wrote the name of Gulab Singh and
thereafter he became unconscious.’
This dearly indicates that before the deceased wrote
the name of Gulab Chand on the paper given by his son, PW 3,
no one including PW 19 came forward with the names of the
assailants but it is only thereafter, PW 19 gave the names
of the assailants. Here also, the prosecution is not con-
sistent because PW 2 says that her father also gave the name
of all the assailants to Ram Kumar (PW 3). The relevant part
of PW 2’s evidence reads thus:
"Then my mother and father both
mentioned the names of the assailants. At that
time my brother, Ram Kumar was also there.
After Ramji had enquired, my brother also
enquired them. My father asked for by a sign
of hand for pen and a copy."
The above extracted pieces of evidence of PWs 2 and 19
indicate that PW 3 was not informed of the names of the
assailants before his father (the deceased herein) wrote the
name of Gulab Chand. Had PW 3 informed by his mother (PW 19)
of the names of the assailants, he might not have asked his
father as to who the assailants were. In other words, till
the deceased wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of
paper evidently PW 3 did not know as to who assailant or
assailants was/were.
It seems that both the Courts below have not approached
this significant aspect of this salient feature in the
proper perspective. On the other hand, it has conveniently
omitted this significant factor from consideration which
gives the death-knell to the prosecution case so far as the
alleged participation of these two appellants in this brutal
crime. In the inquest report Exh. P 24, it is stated that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
all the relatives of the deceased
433
Keshav Singh were examined and the following conclusion was
arrived at:
"..... the conclusion was reached that the
death of deceased Keshav Singh by Gulab Singh,
Gulab Chand etc. was due to knife wounds."
This ’etc.’ in the present case has no relevance because
there is a specific averment that the two assailants namely,
Gulab Singh and Gulab Chand stabbed the deceased with knives
which case alone fits in with the earlier statements of PWs
2 and 19 as well as the version of the deceased in Exh.
P.50. If really the names of these two appellants had been
mentioned by the witnesses, those names also would have been
specifically mentioned in Exh. P :24. At this juncture, the
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State
referred to a decision of this Court reported in [1975] 4
SCC 153 Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein
this Court has held that the question regarding the details
as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or
under what circumstances, he was assaulted is foreign to the
ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. This
decision will not be of any help to the prosecution because
only two names are mentioned in the inquest report as as-
sailants, leaving the names of these two appellants who are
now rightly attempting to take advantage of this conspicuous
omission in Exh. P. 24.
Though PW 19 is said to be the author of Exh. P 43, she
before the Trial Court does not claim to be the author of
the entire averments. She states that the police who record-
ed the report, asked only her name and her husband’s name
and nothing further was asked from her and she did state
anything more than that. PW 19 further had deposed that she
did not give the names of the accused who assaulted, that
she did not know whether her husband was then dead or alive,
that at Thana (Police Station) she came to know about the
death of her husband, that even then she did not mention the
names of the assailants, and that before going to the Thana,
she did not give the names of any of the assailants to any
person.
It is in evidence that both these appellants were
present at the scene of occurrence when the police constable
came, but none pointed out to the police that these two
appellants also participated in the crime. Now the explana-
tion offered by the prosecution is that these two appellants
took the constable aside and whispered something and there-
fore, PW 1 suspecting that the police constable was taking
side with the appellants did not come forward with a state-
ment that these two appellants were also the participants in
the crime. This explanation seems to have been offered only
before the Trial Court. Both the Courts below have conven-
iently over-
434
looked and ignored all the above glaring infirmities appear-
ing in the case and as such the concurrent findings recorded
by both the Courts are not proper but perverse.
After meticulously and scrupulously analysing the evi-
dence, we are left with an impression that the prosecution
has not satisfactorily established the guilt of these two
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we are unable
to agree with the findings of the lower Courts that these
two appellants also participated in the crime with the other
two accused.
In the result, the conviction of these two appellants
u/s 302 read with 34 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
for life imposed therefore are set aside and both of them
are acquitted.
The appeal is thus allowed.
V.P.R Appeal al-
lowed.
435