1. Assault leading to death — Charges under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC & ST Act — Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 551
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Shanker - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1785 of 2011
With
Suresh Dhobi - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1786-1788 of 2011
Decided On : 18-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Conviction cannot be awarded on assumptions and conjectures.
It is the quality and not quantity of evidence that matters in convicting accused.
Conviction cannot be awarded on assumptions and conjectures.
It is the quality and not quantity of evidence that matters in convicting accused.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial – Conviction – No cogent and trustworthy evidence – Several contradictions in prime witness evidences – Most of prosecution witnesses turning hostile – No test identification parade conducted – Conviction not justified. (Para 15, 18)
2013 (10) SCALE 454 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Conviction – It is the quality and not quantity of evidence that matters in convicting accused. (Para 17)
(2002) 6 SCC 470 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
An altercation had taken place between Sanjay Sorle and Deepak and others at a marriage venue. After that, Deepak came back with Gudda @ Shivshanker, Shiv, Suresh (appellant herein) and Shanker (appellant herein) and took away Sanjay Sorle from the venue to the road and assaulted him. Altogether 11 persons were allegedly involved in the crime. The injured Sanjay Sorle was taken to police station at Bharveli and lodged the F.I.R. at 11 p.m.
Thereafter police sent injured Sanjay Sorle to the District Hospital at Balaghat for treatment, where he was declared dead.
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted six accused persons from all the charges and discharged the accused (including appellants herein) from the charges under Section 3(2)(5) of SC & ST Atrocities Act, 1989. However, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the remaining five accused (including appellants herein) were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, IPC. Accordingly they were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 148, IPC. Whereas, for the offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to further suffer one year imprisonment. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
Conviction cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. State contended that concurrent findings of guilt by two courts warrant no interference with the impugned judgment. (Para 6 )
3. Material contradictions between prime witnesses regarding the FIR's genesis and the roles of the accused, coupled with medical evidence contradicting claims of fist-blow injuries. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Conviction cannot be sustained based on material contradictions in eyewitness testimony and evidence that fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 14 , 17 , 18 )
5. Appeals allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Conviction and sentence overturned. (Para 19 )
6. When do contradictions in eyewitness testimony justify discrediting prosecution evidence?
While minor inconsistencies are ignored, omissions or contradictions of such magnitude that they materially affect the trial or create serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness justify disbelieving the evidence. (Para 14 )
7. What is the standard for appreciating evidence in criminal cases to award conviction?
The court must prioritize the quality and trustworthiness of evidence over the quantity. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for suspicion regarding key prosecution witnesses. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. How should a court handle reasonable doubt regarding an accused's guilt?
Where the court entertains reasonable doubt, the benefit must go to the accused, provided the evidence is not rejected on fanciful grounds or conjectures. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Ramana, J.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment dated 12th September, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 315, 316, 333 and 590 of 1999, whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against them.
2. Brief facts of the case, according to the prosecution, are that on 8th May, 1998 one Sanjay Sorle was attending a marriage at Bharveli village. While the ceremonials were underway, one Deepak with two others arrived there on motorcycle. An altercation had taken place between Sanjay Sorle and the motorcyclists. Deepak, while leaving that place, threatened Sanjay Sorle and went away. After that, he came back to the marriage venue at about 10.30 p.m. on a bullet motorcycle with Gudda @ Shivshanker, Shiv, Suresh (appellant herein) and Shanker (appellant herein) and took away Sanjay Sorle from the venue to the road and assaulted him. Altogether 11 persons were allegedly involved in the crime. Gudda had inflicted injuries with knife, Shiv with Gupti while Shanker and Suresh i.e. appellants herein attacked him by giving fist blows. The injured Sanjay Sorle was taken to police station at Bharveli and lodged the F.I.R. at 11 p.m.
3. Upon registering the same as Crime No. 54/98, police sent the injured Sanjay Sorle to the District Hospital at Balaghat for treatment, where he was declared dead. After conducting inquest (Ext.P3), dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, statements of witness were recorded, site map has been prepared by Patwary (Ext. P5) as well as police (Ext.P24). Accused were arrested and at the instance of accused Shivshankar, Manoj, Dwarka and Shivkumar knives and other incriminating material have been seized. Bullet motorcycle, allegedly rode by the accused, has also been recovered from the possession of accused Chokhu @ Sudhanshu (Ext. P9). Other things such as bloodstained soil, normal soil and clothes of deceased were seized and sent for expert examination. Charges were levelled against five accused persons i.e. Manoj, Baburao, Deepak, Gudda @ Shivshanker, Shanker and Dwarka @ Dan under Sections 148 and 302/149, IPC. In addition to those charges, accused Rupesh, Chokhu @ Rakesh, Suresh, Shiv Kumar and Dablu @ Sudhanshu were additionally charged for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(5) SC & ST Act, 1989. The accused denied the charges, pleaded to have been falsely implicated and claimed to be tried.
4. After an elaborate trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge by a common judgment in Special Sessions Case No. 51/1998 and Sessions Case No. 120/1998, acquitted six accused persons from all the charges and discharged the accused (including appellants herein) from the charges under Section 3(2)(5) of SC & ST Atrocities Act, 1989. However, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the remaining five accused (including appellants herein) were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, IPC. Accordingly by judgment dated 27th January, 1999 they were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 148, IPC. Whereas, for the offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to further suffer one year imprisonment. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. All the five accused persons, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur assailing the award of their conviction and sentence. By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court found their appeal devoid of merits and therefore dismissed the same upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the same, Accused No. 3-Suresh Dhobi and Accused No. 5-Shanker are
