Back
2010 (7) Supreme 565
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ranjit Singh & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1072 of 2006
Decided on : 27-10-2010
(2006) 12 SCC 64; AIR 1997 SC 768; AIR 1975 SC 1252; AIR 1978 SC 1142; AIR 1981 SC 631; (2009) 12 SCC 342; (2008) 5 SCC 368 – Relied upon
(b) Maxim – Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – False in one false in all – Does not apply in criminal cases in India, as a witness may be partly truthful and partly false in the evidence he gives to the Court – Court has to separate the falsehood from the truth. (Paras 14 and 16)
AIR 1975 SC 1962; AIR 1965 SC 277; (2002) 10 SCC 366; (2007) 9 SCC 589; (2007) 10 SCC 455; (2008) 17 SCC 152; (2009) 12 SCC 275; (2009) 12 SCC 288; (2010) 6 SCC 673; (2009) 14 SCC 494 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Number of witnesses required – No rule of law barring conviction on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, if reliable – More than one witness is required only in a case where a witness deposes in a general and vague manner, or in the case of a riot. (Para 22)
AIR 1965 SC 202; AIR 1978 SC 1647; AIR 1997 SC 322; (1999) 8 SCC 701; (2001) 8 SCC 690 – Relied upon
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 and section 157 r/w section 161, Cr. P.C. – A statement made in expectation of death but the person making it not dying, cannot be treated as a dying declaration – It has to be dealt with under Section 157 – It has to be treated as of a superior quality/high degree than that of a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. – It may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to the same fact. (Paras 24 and 25)
AIR 1997 SC 940; AIR 1983 SC 126; AIR 1999 SC 1969; 1996 SC 2791; AIR 2004 SC 4614 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial – Injured witness – Evidence of injured witnesses has to be given due weightage. (Para 29)
AIR 2002 SC 3652; (2003) 1 SCC 456; (2004) 7 SCC 629; (2006) 12 SCC 459; AIR 2009 SC 2661; (2010) 6 SCC 673 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial – Interested and related witnesses – Evidence of such witnesses should be examined with care and caution – Mere acquittal of some of the accused will not make statements of such witnesses liable to be discarded as a whole. (Para 32)
(2008) 8 SCC 270; (2008) 15 SCC 604; (2009) 13 SCC 722 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. The accused were charged with offences of abduction, assault and murder.
2. The trial court acquitted 22 accused and convicted 10 including the present appellants.
3. The High Court acquitted two accused/appellants. However, it dismissed the appeal of the remaining 8 appellants maintaining their conviction and sentences.
Finding of the Court:
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore-Bench) in Criminal Appeal Nos.149 and 180 of 1995, by which the High Court has dismissed the appeals against the judgment and order dated 8.2.1995 passed by the Sessions Court convicting the appellants under sections 148, 365, 342, 323, 324 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the ‘IPC’), and awarded them life imprisonment along with other punishments.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
(A) That on 21.1.1988, the First Information Report (hereinafter called as FIR) bearing No.18/88 was lodged at 9 A.M. under sections 148, 365, 342, 323, 324 and 324/149 IPC in the Police Station, Namli District, Ratlam by Nagu, informant/complainant, stating that on 19.1.1988 Nagu and Gangaram (PW.24) had gone to the District Court, Ratlam to attend a case and at about 3 P.M. the accused persons, namely, Ranjit (A.3), Kamal Das (A.12), Vikramsingh (both of whom died during the course of trial), Ramesh Patidar (A.4), Shantilal (A.6) and Pooran Das (A.2) reached the court compound and took Nagu and Gangaram (PW.24) on their bicycle to an iron factory on the pretext of reaching some compromise in the case and thereafter they had been taken in a truck loaded with sand to the outskirts of village Amleta. From there they had been taken to village Bhaisatiya. Nagu and Gangaram (PW.24) were assaulted by the accused persons with lathis and were asked the whereabouts of Shantilal, Shambhu and Mohan. Nagu disclosed that Shantilal was in village Bamankhedi and Shambhu, Kailash and Mohan were in village Budheda. The accused persons wrongly confined Nagu inside the house of Nandu and took away Gangaram (PW.24) with them. They brought Shantilal in a tractor in the night at 2 A.M. and put him inside the room with Nagu and locked the room from outside. On the next day, i.e., 20.1.1988 at about 8-9 A.M., they brought Kailash (PW.25), Shambhu and Gangaram (PW.24) and confined them also in the same room along with Nagu and Shantilal. After some time, they took all of them to the well of Gopal Maharaj situated at village Panched and the accused persons assaulted Shantilal with lathis as a consequence of which Shantilal became unconscious. Kailash (PW.25) and Shambhu were also assaulted. Again they took Shantilal (in unconscious condition) in the field of one Dhula Chowkidar and they assaulted Shantilal, Kailash (PW.25) and Shambhu with lathis. Shantilal died on the spot. Shambhu also received grievous injuries on his person. The accused persons left the injured persons and moved to a distance watching for the consequences. After some time, the accused persons reached near Shantilal and checked whether he was dead or alive and once they were satisfied that Shantilal was no more, they fled.
(B) The FIR lodged by the complainant, Nagu was recorded by SHO Govardhan Singh (PW.30) vide Ex.P-63. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava (PW.29) and another Police Officer reached the spot and found Shantilal dead whereas Shambhu, Gangaram (PW.24) and Kailash (PW.25) were lying there in injured condition. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava (PW.29) prepared the inquest (Ex.P-5) of the deceased Shantilal, seized blood-stained cloth, and collected earth and blood-stained earth. He sent the dead body of Shantilal for post- mortem examination. The injured persons, namely, Nagu, Shambhu, Kailash (PW.25) and Gangaram (PW.24) were sent for medical examination to Government Hospital, Ratlam. Kanhaiya Lal Dharia, Naib Tehsildar (PW.26) recorded the statement of the injured witness, Kailash (PW.25). On 21.1.1988, Dr. M.A. Qureshi (PW.1) performed the autopsy of the deceased Shantilal and prepared the report (Ex.P-3). He also examined on the same day the injured Kailash (PW.25) and Nagu. On the same day, i.e., 21.1.1988 Dr. Virendra Singh (PW.15) examined Shambhu and also took his X-ray and fou
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
