Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1810

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Prahlad – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2043 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2010
Decided On : 27-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. K. Satija, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Vipul Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Inder Dev Singh, Advocate, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate, Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Advocate, H.B. Hina, Advocate, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction cannot be based solely on unreliable witness testimony, and previous enmity can be a ground for false implication. Additionally, lacunae in the investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal if there is other reliable evidence on record.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the murder of Ramesh, allegedly due to political enmity. The prosecution accused three individuals of hatching a conspiracy to kill Ramesh. The trial court acquitted all three accused, but the High Court convicted two of them for murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused based on unreliable evidence. The court found discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements, lack of fair and impartial investigation, and unreliable recovery of evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of witness testimony, the fairness of the investigation, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that conviction cannot be based solely on unreliable witness testimony and that previous enmity can be a ground for false implication. The court also highlighted that lacunae in the investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal if there is other reliable evidence on record.
Final Decision: The High Court's decision to convict the accused was overturned, and the appeals were allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J. - Both these appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.247 of 1993, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh in part and reversing the order of acquittal dated 9th November, 1992, as recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Harda (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge') in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1991 in respect of the appellants herein.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under:

2.1 On 22nd June, 1991, Police Station, Harda received a written information (Exhibit P-10) at 4.25 p.m. from Dr. Kailash Narayan Singhal (P.W.10), to the effect that one Ramesh son of Ramgopal Jat, aged about 38 years, resident of Chhoti Harda had been brought to the Hospital in a serious condition. In the said written information (Exhibit P-10), it was stated that Ramesh was attacked by a Katta shot. On the basis of the said written information, Police Station Harda registered a First Information Report ('FIR' for short) vide Crime No.153 of 1991 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). On registration of the FIR, Shri M.K. Shrivastava, City Inspector, Police Station Incharge (P.W.17) visited the spot of occurrence. Dr. Kailash Narayan Singhal (P.W.10) and Dr. Rajendra Kumar Patel (P.W.14) provided first aid to the injured Ramesh and referred him to Indore Medical College for further treatment. However, Ramesh died on the way to Indore and his dead-body was brought back to Harda, where, on 23rd June, 1991, Merg No. 18 of 1991 was registered and postmortem of the deceased was conducted. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased Ramesh was heavy bleeding due to injury caused by firearm.

2.2 The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Ramesh had political enmity with the three accused, i.e., Mohan (Accused No.1), Prahlad (Accused No.2) and Jagdish (Accused No.3). It was further the case of the prosecution that all three accused had hatched a conspiracy to do away with the deceased. Mohan (Accused No.1) and Prahlad (Accused No.2) had used the motorcycle of Jagdish (Accused No.3) to arrive near Handia Bus Stand, where a gun-shot was fired at the deceased from a short distance.

2.3 At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge.

2.4 Charges came to be framed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 120-B and 302 of the IPC and in the alternative, for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2.5 The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Their defence was that they were falsely implicated on account of party politics in village. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted all the three accused.

2.6 Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment, though affirmed the order of acquittal of Jagdish (Accused No.3), however, reversed the order of acquittal insofar as the present appellants, viz., Mohan (Accused No.1) and Prahlad (Accused No.2) are concerned. The High Court convicted them for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Insofar as the acquittal of the present appellants for other charge