Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Kannaiya – Appellants
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 116 of 2012
Decided On : 17-10-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Murder – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Parties belong to rival political factions – In FIR, there is no reference to presence of so-called eye witness at crime scene – Incident took place in a small village where everyone is known to each other – Fact that name of a family member who claims to have seen assault, was not mentioned in FIR is a very vital omission which would have bearing on veracity of prosecution case – Very substratum of prosecution case regarding genesis of incident and place of occurrence has been materially altered in testimony of witness – Prosecution has failed to provide any corroborative evidence to render testimony of witness trustworthy or reliable – Site inspection plan does not record availability of any source of light at crime scene and it is hard to believe that alleged eyewitnesses could have accurately identified particular weapon being used by accused to assault victim – Prosecution has failed to establish genesis of occurrence and place of incident with any degree of certainty – Suppression of genesis of occurrence and shifting of place of incident demolish very substratum of prosecution case – All convicted accused persons are entitled to be extended benefit of doubt – Impugned judgments set aside – In exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution, benefit of this Judgment extended to non-appealing convicts. (Paras 29, 38, 47, 48, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64)
Facts of the case:
Accused-appellant has approached this Court for assailing judgment dated 9th April, 2009, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 1999 whereby, High Court dismissed appeal preferred by accused-appellant and three co-accused persons under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Findings of Court:
Appellant and the said co accused are acquitted of the charges. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The accused-appellant herein has approached this Court for assailing the judgment dated 9th April, 2009, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore1[Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’.] in Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 1999 whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and three co-accused persons under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[For short, “CrPC”.].
3. By way of the aforesaid appeal, the four convicts including the accused-appellant herein had assailed the judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh3[Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.] in Sessions Case No. 524 of 1990, convicting the accused- appellant and three others namely Govardhan, Raja Ram and Bhima for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604[For short, “IPC”.] and Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
4. It needs to be noted that only the accused- appellant has approached this Court to assail the judgment of the High Court, whereas, the remaining three accused seem not to have availed this remedy. Brief Facts: -
5. Succinctly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
6. Shri Gobariya (PW-2) lodged an FIR at the Police Station, Manpur, alleging inter alia that on 28th September, 1990 an incident took place at about 09:00 pm in his village Chak. The accused-appellant and nine others namely Babu Lal, Gyan Singh, Bhima, Birjo, Raja Ram, Ram Swaroop, Govardhan, Keshar Singh and Asha Ram were damaging the Tapra (temporary hutment) of Jagya (PW-3). Ramesh, son of the informant (PW-2) intervened and tried to pacify the accused persons and requested them to desist from damaging the hut whereupon, the assailants diverted their attention towards Ramesh and started assaulting him indiscriminately.
7. Govardhan was armed with a sword, Kannaiya (accused-appellant) was armed with an axe, Keshar Singh, Asha Ram, Bhima and Gyan Singh were armed with sticks, whereas, Raja Ram, Ram Swaroop, Birjo and Babu Lal were unarmed. These unarmed assailants used their fists and kicks to beat Ramesh whereas, the armed assailants caused injuries to him using their respective weapons.
8. The informant (PW-2) further alleged that his son, Ramesh, started bleeding profusely because of the injuries caused to him by sharp weapons and sticks, and fell down unconscious. On hearing the outcry, Madho Singh (PW-5), Ramchander (PW-4), and other villagers came there and saw the incident. The informant (PW-2) and Madho Singh (PW-5) picked up Ramesh in injured condition. It was alleged that the assailants were having a political rivalry with the complainant party and that was the cause of the assault.
9. The oral statement of the informant (PW-2) recorded at the Police Station, Manpur, on 29th September, 1990 at about 8.00 am, was treated to be a complaint and based thereupon, a formal FIR bearing Case No. 212 of 1990 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 307, 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. However, it is noteworthy that the said formal FIR was not proved by the prosecution at the trial.
10. Ramesh was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Manpur, for treatment, where he was examined by Dr. M.S. Pathak (PW-17) who issued the medico legal certificate (Exh.P-22). 5[For short, “MLC”.] From there, he was referred for better management and treatment to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore where he expired on 5th October, 1990 while undergoing treatment. The Chief Medical Officer of M.Y. Hospital sent an intimation regarding death of Ramesh to the Sanyogitaganj Police Station, Indore, whereupon offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was added to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
