Back
2008(4) Supreme 355
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Aniruddha Singh & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2006
Decided on : 16-05-08
Facts of the Case :
1. Appellant accused persons herein in the instant case were prosecuted along with four others for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with deadly weapons. Prosecution case that enmity between parties appeared to have been long festering as to dispute with regard to two bighas of land. Trial Court relying upon evidence of four eye witnesses and that they were not unanimous with respect to exact role of some of the accused, acquitted four co accused persons while convicting appellants. On Appeal, High Court confirmed judgment of trial Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
There was no doubt whatsoever with regard to presence of PW 1 and PW 2 and PW 4 at scene of occurrence. Eye witnesses account was supported by medical evidence which showed presence of 12 injuries on dead body caused with several different types of weapons. Very genesis of incident i.e. motive for attack and manner in which complainant party had been waylaid by several persons armed with lethal weapons and the fact that a large number of injuries with several fractures had been caused, showed that accused party had come with intention of settling scores with deceased. Evidence on record showed that as a matter of fact, A1 had caused injury No.1 and not N and that trial Court had dealt with this matter in extenso and after going through the eye witnesses’ account observed that it was A1 who had caused said injury to deceased with an axe-Mere fact that First Information Report was silent on this aspect would not dislodge prosecution story in face of overwhelming eye witnesses’ testimony. Again as per the evidence, since A1, was the leader of the accused party and in the forefront of the land dispute. Hence Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —
1. This appeal by special arises out of the following facts.
2. On 1st August, 1991 at about 6.00 p.m. Dharmendra Singh PW 2 and Rajendra Singh, Bhawar Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, Mandatar Singh, Mahendra Singh and Krishna Kunwar Bai and her husband Dhyanpal Singh deceased having taken their buffaloes for grazing were returning to the village. As they reached near the field known as ‘Goyrawali Beed’, the accused armed with Dhariyas, Farsis, Swords, and lathies surrounded them. Anirudha Singh Patwari exhorted the other accused to kill Dhyanpal Singh and on his exhortation, Pradyumna Singh inflicted an injury with his sword on Dhyanpal Singh and Narendra Singh (since acquitted) caused a Dharia blow on his person whereas Anand Singh caused an injury with a Farsi whereas all the other accused Surendra Singh, Balram Singh, Manohar Singh, Pratap Singh, Krishna Singh caused injuries with lathies. Dhyanpal Singh fell on the ground bleeding profusely. At that moment his son, PW 2 Dharmendra Singh, and one PW 14 Poona Balai also reached the spot and on account of the noise raised by them PW 5 Mandatar Singh and Gopal Singh also rushed that side. Dhyanpal Singh was taken in a tractor belonging to PW 11 Mahendra Singh towards the hospital but he succumbed on the way. PW 1 Krishna Kunwar Bai, the wife of the deceased, thereupon went on to the Police Station along with her son Dharmendra Singh and lodged the First Information Report at 8.45 p.m. The police then reached the place of occurrence and made the necessary inquiries. The Trial Court found that Anand Singh, one of the accused was a Juvenile and his case was accordingly transferred to the Juvenile Court whereas the other accused were brought to trial. The Trial Court examined the evidence in extenso and observed that both the parties i.e. accused as well as the victims were very close relations of each other, Dhyanpal Singh deceased being the real brother of accused Aniruddha Singh. The Trial Court then assessed the prosecution evidence and observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the four eye witnesses who had supported the prosecution version and that their evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as the injuries found on the dead body could have been caused with the weapons allegedly used by the accused. The Trial Court further observed that as the enmity between the parties appeared to have been long festering as the dispute with regard to the two bighas of land which Dhaynpal Singh claimed as his own but was disputed by his brother and nephew, it was appropriate that an assessment be made with regard to the involvement of each of the accused. The Trial Court, thereafter, on a minute examination, held that as the four eye witnesses were not unanimous with respect to the exact role of the some of the accused, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt and having so observed acquitted accused Balram Singh, Krishna Singh, Narendra Singh and Surindra Singh but convicted the present appellants for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The High Court in appeal confirmed the judgment of the trial court. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. S.K. Gambhir, the learned senior counsel for the accused - appellant has argued that the presence of PW 3 Bhagwan Singh and PW 4 Parkash Kunwar had to be ruled out as the prosecution case itself revealed that they had been at a distance of about 220 meters when the incident had happened and as such they could not have seen the actual assault. He has in this case referred to the statement of PW9 the Patwari and PW17 the Investigating Officer. He has also submitted that PW3 had been identified as Bhagwan Singh but the person mentioned in the FIR was one Gopal and as such the presence of PW3 was al
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
