IMPORTANT POINT
As there are grave doubts on to the presence of two eye witnesses believed by Courts below for conviction of the appellants, their conviction cannot be sustained, it was a case of blind murder.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction of appellants under by two Courts-Appeal to Supreme Court -Conviction based on testimony of two eye witnesses which were found interested and chance witnesses-Their testimony of causing accident by car to deceased s motor cycle not established -Two days delay of sending FIR to Magistrate-Medical evidence not supporting eye witnesses-False story of conspiracy-Effect-Acquittal.
Held : Looking to the cumulative effect of all the abovesaid circumstances and having scrutinized the testimony of the eye witnesses carefully, we are not inclined to place reliance on their testimony. Evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence to show that information as to the death of Peshawar Singh having been caused and the dead body lying on A.B. road reached village Baskhedi whereafter some family members of the deceased and the witnessed reached the place of the incident, found the dead body of Peshawar Singh lying there and informed the police whereafter the police swung into action. It was a case of blind murder. Though the testimony of defence witnesses has been cursorily touched by the trial Court and also by the High Court with both of whom the testimony of two eye witnesses has been found to be more weighty than the defence evidence on weighing in the scales. Having examined the testimony of defence witness, four in number, originating from the residents of the village, we are of the opinion that the same cannot just be thrown overboard. Be that as it may, as we entertain grave doubt on the presence of the two eye witnesses at the place of the incident so as to have witnessed the incident, the conviction of the two accused appellants, which rests on the testimony of the two witnesses, cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the two accused appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside. They are directed to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence. (Paras 19 and 20)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Baldev Singh and Gurmeet Singh, the two accused appellants, are real brothers and have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. One Inder Singh and his six sons including the two appellants, were all charged under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC for having hatched a conspiracy to intentionally commit murder of Peshawar Singh, the deceased, pursuant whereto the two accused appellants intentionally caused death of the said Peshawar Singh on 26-6-1993 at a place situated on Agra - Bombay road falling within the territory of P.S. Shivpuri. The trial Court disbelieved that part of the story which related to hatching conspiracy and, therefore, directed five accused persons, other than the two accused appellants, to be acquitted. The two accused appellants have been held guilty by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC which conviction has been maintained by the High Court.

3. A few admitted facts. The family of the accused persons and the several witnesses including Satnam Singh, PW-3 and Raghubir Singh, PW-4, the two eye witnesses, are all residents of village Baskhedi situated at a distance of about one and a half kms. in the interior from Agra - Bombay National Highway. The place where the incident took place is situated at a distance of about six kms. from the city of Shivpuri.

4. It is also admitted that Satnam Singh, PW-3, is brother of deceased Peshawar Singh. Satnam Singh, PW-3, his father and his brothers were charged for the murder of the son of Inder Singh in the year 1973 but were acquitted. PW-4 Raghubir Singh was also an accused in that murder case. Thereafter, one Hardev Singh, another son of Inder Singh was murdered in which Satnam Singh, PW-3 and his brothers were arrested on grave suspicion but were released. The genesis of strained relationship between the parties and the several incidents taking place in succession is land which probably stands jointly owned by the family members of the accused and the deceased. Admittedly, a suit for partition is pending between Raghubir Singh, PW-4 and Balwant Singh, PW-8 on one hand and the accused Inder Singh on the other.

5. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 25-6-1993, Kabul Singh, PW-2 came to the house of Raghubir Singh, PW-4. Both took the supper together whereafter Kabul Singh stayed put at the house of Raghubir Singh, PW-4. Raghubir Singh woke up at about 5 a.m. in the morning of 26-6-1993 and found one of his buffaloes missing from the place where it was tied. Raghubir Singh and Kabul Singh set out in search of the buffalo. They happened to pass by the side of the field of the accused Inder Singh. The two witnesses saw the seven accused persons collected together below a shisham tree and conspiring to commit the murder of Peshawar Singh, the deceased. They heard Baldev Singh accused declaring that Peshawar Singh should be killed by hitting him with the jeep, newly purchased by Inder Singh, to which all the accused persons replied in affirmative. The accused Inder Singh said that if Peshawar Singh was not killed on being hit by the jeep then he should be roasted with bullets so that the problem comes to an end. The two witnesses returned to the house of Raghubir Singh.

6. It is also the prosecution case that sometime in the evening of 25-6-93, Satnam Singh, PW-3 had gone to the locality of tribals called sahrana to engage agricultural labourers available there. They happened to meet there and Raghubir Singh, PW-4 was told by Satnam Singh, PW-3 that he was likely to go to Shivpuri the next day whereupon Raghubir Singh agreed to join him and accompany him to Shivpuri. Next day, at about 1.30 p.m., both the witnesses left the village for Shivpuri on bicycles. As soon as they reached Agra-Bombay road they saw Peshawar Singh coming on his motorcycle from the opposite direction, i.e. from the side of Shivpuri. A jeep without number plate driven by Baldev Singh where

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1

IMPORTANT POINTAs there are grave doubts on to the presence of two eye witnesses believed by Courts below for conviction of the appellants, their conviction cannot be sustained, it was a case of blind murder.

IMPORTANT POINT
As there are grave doubts on to the presence of two eye witnesses believed by Courts below for conviction of the appellants, their conviction cannot be sustained, it was a case of blind murder.