SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1203

1997(8) Supreme 27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi, S.P. Kurdukar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
MADRU SINGH & ORS. -APPELLANTS
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 315-16 of 1993
Decided on 9-9-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.M. Singh, Kirpal Singh, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Uma Nath Singh, Advocate.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code 1860-Sections 148 & 302/149-Prosecution case that appellants assaulted deceased with sword, axes and farsi when deceased was returning on bicycle with his wife-14 incised injuries were found on dead body in autopsy-Trial Court convicted appellants for offences under but acquitted then of charge u/s 324/34 for causing injuries to wife of deceased PW1-Appeal-Copy of FIR was received by concerned Magistrate after two days-That by itself could not be a circumstance that FIR was ante dated-Dispute searching cross examination, presence of PW1 on spot and report lodged by her on same day could not be made doubtful-Some omissions and contradictions, trivial in nature, would not affect prosecution case-PW1 gave all necessary details as regards assault, weapons and role played by each accused-Her presence stood corroborated by evidence of PW2 to PW4-High Court confirmed finding after going through entire evidence-Conviction suffered no infirmity. (Para 7 to 11)

       

JUDGMENT

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-These two criminal appeals by special leave are filed by A-1 to A-4 and A-6 against a common judgment dated July 30, 1992 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore. All the appellants under the impugned order stood convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life respectively.

2. The appellants along with Bhagirath (A-5) and Bali Ram (A-7) were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Peera Singh. Bhagirath (A-5) died during the pendency of trial and hence, trial abated against him. Bali Ram (A-7) was acquitted of all the charges by the High Court. Peera Singh (since deceased) was the resident of village Kalmer in district Indore (M.P.). Peera Singh suspected that his first wife was abducted by Bhagirath (A-5 since dead) which led to the incident of assault on Bhagirath by Peera Singh and his two associates, namely, Amba Ram and Hari Das. As a result of this assault, Bhagirath sustained serious injuries on his leg which was ultimately required to be amputated. For that crime, all three accused persons were tried and convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. After undergoing the said sentence, Peera Singh and others came out of jail. This was a cause for enmity between them. It was alleged by the prosecution that Bhagirath and his companions were waiting for an opportunity to take revenge on Peera Singh and ultimately on 7th August, 1984 at about 4.00 p.m., the appellants and two other accused persons picked up a quarrel with Peera Singh when he was returning on a bicycle with his wife Ram Kanya (PW 1) from Hatod to his village Kalmer. Shanker Singh (A-2) obstructed Peera Singh near village Kankad and thereafter Kamal Singh (A-3) assaulted Peera Singh on his neck by sword. Peera Singh and his wife fell down. Madru Singh (A-1), Mangi Lal (A-4) and Deokaran (A-6) who were hiding at a short distance reached the place of assault with weapons in their hands. Peera Singh and his wife anticipating danger to their lives started running towards the field of Bhagirath. All the appellants chased them and after overpowering Peera Singh, he was dropped on the ground in the field of Bhagirath. A-1 and A-3 were armed with axes. A-6 was armed with farsi. In the meantime, A-7 appeared on the scene of occurrence with lathi and knife. A-5 (since deceased) exhorted the appellants to chop off the head of Peera Singh. Ram Kanya (PW 1) tried to intervene and requested them to spare her husband but appellants did not pay any heed to her request but on the contrary they assaulted Ram Kanya (PW 1). While the assault was going on, a Matador was passing by the road. Ram Kanya (PW 1) gave a signal to the driver of the Matador to stop which in fact stopped. Goverdhan (PW 2), Rameshwar, Sundar (PW 8) and Hari Dass (PW 4) who were the occupants of the said Matador got down therefrom. The appellants finding that some persons had arrived at the scene of occurrence, fled away. Ram Kanya (PW 1) then requested the occupants of the Matador to help her in carrying the injured to the police station at Hatod. While carrying the injured Peera Singh to the police station at Hatod, he died on the way before they reached the police station. The statement of Ram Kanya (PW 1) was recorded by the Station House Officer on 7th August, 1984 at 6.00 p.m. After registering the FIR of Ram Kanya (PW 1) at about 6.00 p.m., the dead body of Peera Singh was sent to the Primary Health Centre, Hatod. Dr. Kochar (PW 5), Medical Officer held the autopsy on the dead body of Peera Singh on 8th August, 1984 and found as many as 14 incised injuries on the dead body. The cause of death as mentioned by Dr. Kochar was due to exc















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top