Important Point
Where no explanation was offered for delay of three weeks in recording statements of eye witnesses, High Court held justified in giving benefit of doubt to Respondent accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307 r\w sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act –Prosecution of respondent A1 for causing death of deceased by gun shot injury, for attempting to murder one another and for using gun without a licence-Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – High Court acquitted respondent by giving him benefit of doubt – Appeal – Even though occurrence took place on 18.3.1984, statements of three eye-witnesses, PW1, PW3, PW4were recorded only on 6.4.1984 and evidence of two other eye-witnesses PW5 and PW7were recorded on 7.4.1984 – No explanation for delay of three weeks in recording statements of said eye witnesses-Categorical statement of pw7 that he had lodged report at police station, but prosecution case that Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P7) was recorded at spot – Where and when Dehati nalshi was recorded therefore assumed relevance and significance – Evidence on record to show that there was non-compliance with provision of section 157 Cr.PC as report was not sent to nearest Magistrate – According to evidences of (PW3) and (PW4), respondent fired from a distance but Doctor found blackening on the body of the deceased and that did not fit in with case of prosecution – Circumstances relied on by High Court to give benefit of doubt to the respondent, being relevant and material, taken together, rightly gave room for doubt about prosecution case and guilt of Respondent – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 8 to 12)
       Facts of the Case :
       1.Respondent A1 was prosecuted for causing death of deceased by gun shot injury, for attempting to murder one another and for using gun without a licence. Trial Court convicted Respondent for said offences. On Appeal, High Court acquitted respondent by giving him benefit of doubt.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of acquittal.
       Findings of Court :
       Even though occurrence took place on 18.3.1984, statements of three eye-witnesses, PW1, PW3, PW4 were recorded only on 6.4.1984 and evidence of two other eye-witnesses PW5 and PW7were recorded on 7.4.1984. No explanation was offered for delay of three weeks in recording statements of said eye witnesses.Categorical statement of pw7 that he had lodged report at police station, but prosecution case that Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P7) was recorded at spot. Where and when Dehati nalshi was recorded therefore assumed relevance and significance. Evidence on record showed that there was non-compliance with provision of section 157 Cr.PC as report was not sent to nearest Magistrate. According to evidences of (PW3) and (PW4) respondent, fired from a distance but Doctor found blackening on the body of the deceased and that did not fit in with case of prosecution-.Circumstances relied on by High Court to give benefit of doubt to the respondent, being relevant and material, taken together, rightly gave room for doubt about prosecution case and guilt of Respondent. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Order

1.This is a State appeal by special leave against the Judgment dated 20.3.2001 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 1988 acquitting the respondent Kalyan Singh (Accused No.1) by giving him the benefit of doubt.

2.The prosecution case in brief is that there was enmity between Balbir Singh, father of respondent and Jagdish (PW12) on account of Jagdish defeating Balbir Singh in the Sarpanch elections. On 18.3.1984, a day after the Holi festival, Jagdish as Sarpanch, invited the villagers for playing Faag at Panchayat Bhawan. One Barar, a member of Jagdish’s group, was playing Dholak. Balbir Singh came there and tried to snatch the Dholak from Barar. Jagdish objected to Balbir trying to play Dholak at Faag function organized by him and tried to pull the Dholak. In the meanwhile, Kalyan Singh, son of Balbir came there armed with a gun. Balbir exhorted him to kill Jagdish. Kalyan Singh fired at Jagdish causing injury on the hip of Jagdish. Jagdish fired back with his pistol and Balbir collapsed and died. Thereafter, Kalyan Singh took another shot at Jagdish. The shot hit Bhajju who fell down and died. Gajraj (PW8), who was standing nearby, also received pellet injuries. When Kalyan Singh again tried to shoot, Banmali (PW1) snatched the gun and ran. Sovran (A2) and Ghanshyam (A4) beat Banmali. Banmali fell down. Gajraj took the gun from Banmali and kept it in the shop of Jagdish.

3.On receipt of the information, police visited the place of incident and on the Dehati Nalshi of given by PW7 Sita Ram, (Ex.P7), FIR was registered. Jagdish (PW12), Gajraj (PW8) and Banmali (PW1) who sustained injuries in the incident were medically examined. After investigation police submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent Kalyan Singh (A1) for the offence under section 302 IPC for causing the death of Bhajju, for the offence under section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Jagdish and for offences under sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, for using the gun without a licence. The charge-sheet was also filed against Accused Nos.2 to 6 for offences under section 201 IPC, alleging that they had filed a false report with the police with the purpose of concealing the murder of Bhajju.

4.The defence was that Jagdish (PW12) and his party came to the house of Balbir Singh and called him. When Balbir came out, Jagdish (PW12) shot him and Balbir died. Then, Bhajju nephew of Balbir Singh came running to the place of incident. One Hari Gupta belonging to the group of Jagdish shot him and Bhajju died. The accused relied on the reports Ex.D4 and Ex.D9 and the evidence of DW1 to DW4 who narrated the defence version. It is stated that DW4 was the father and DW3 was the brother of deceased Bhajju.

5.The police however on investigation was of the view that Hari Gupta did not shoot Bhajju and they accepted the version of Jagdish and his party. The Trial Court by its Judgment dated 12.4.1988 acquitted Accused 2 to 6 as prosecution was not able to prove the offence under section 201 IPC against them. In so far as Kalyan Singh (A1) was concerned, the Trial Court held that prosecution had proved the offences under sections 302 and 307 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. It sentenced the first respondent to undergo RI for life, three years, one year and three years respectively for the offences under sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

6.Feeling aggrieved, Kalyan Singh filed an appeal. The Madhya Pradesh High Court by its Judgment dated 20.3.2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence against Kalyan Singh. It gave him the benefit of doubt for the following four reasons :

(i)Though the occurrence took place on 18.3.1984, the statements of three eye-witnesses, namely, Banmali (PW1), Dhani Ram (PW3) and Michhua (PW4) were recorded only on 6.4.1984 and the evidence of two other eye-witnesses - Pholua (PW5) and Sita Ram (PW7) were recorded on 7.4.1984 and there was no explanation for the delay of three weeks in r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 985

2008(5) Supreme 1SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.State of Madhya Pradesh — AppellantversusKalyan Singh — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2003Decided on : 26-06-08

Important PointWhere no explanation was offered for delay of three weeks in recording statements of eye witnesses, High Court held justified in giving benefit of doubt to Respondent accused.

2008(5) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh — Appellant
versus
Kalyan Singh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2003
Decided on : 26-06-08

Important Point
Where no explanation was offered for delay of three weeks in recording statements of eye witnesses, High Court held justified in giving benefit of doubt to Respondent accused.