Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ranjit Singh and Ors.
Versus.
State of Madhya Pradesh
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 – A witness may be partly truthful and partly false in the evidence he gives to the Court. (Para 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 – No bar on conviction on testimony of sole eye-witness, if reliable – Corroboration is a rule of prudence – More than one witness required in case a witness deposes in general and vague terms, or in case of 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 – Statement of injured witness recorded in anticipation of death – Injured witness survives – Cannot be treated as dying declaration – It has to be treated as of a superior quality/high degree than that of a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Can be used as provided u/s 157 – On the hand if maker of statement u/s 164 CrPC dies, the statement can be used as dying declaration. (Para 24, 25)
AIR 1997 SC 940; AIR 1983 SC 126; AIR 1999 SC 1969; AIR 1996 SC 2791; AIR 2004 SC 4614 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial – Injured witnesses – Their evidence has to be given due weightage – More so when the injury was grievous and one witness was under apprehension of death – Evidence of witnesses reliable and consistent not shaken by vigorous cross-examination. (Para 30)
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 – Close relatives of deceased and injured witnesses – Not expected to shield real culprits by naming somebody else in their place. (Para 32)
(2008) 8 SCC 270; (2008) 15 SCC 604; (2009) 13 SCC 722 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
32 accused persons were put to trial u/s 148, 365, 342, 323, 324 and 324/149 IPC. Out of which 10 were convicted. High Court acquitted two accused but maintained conviction and sentence of the remaining 8 accused.
Finding of the Court:
Courts below have acquitted against whom no specific role was assigned by any witness. Still the appellants have been convicted and sentenced. No interference is warranted.
Result;
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
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 found fractu
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
