Back
2004(2) JLJ 67
(SUPREME COURT)
N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.
Badam Singh v. State of M.P.
Cri. Appeal No. 750 of 2003; against the judgment of M.P. High Court passed in Cri. Appeal No. 124 of 1987; Decided on 4.11.2003.
PW 4 along with PWs 5 and 6 was proceeding to his headquarters at Achhroni from Kachnaria. They were patrolling the forest area. At village Kachnaria they met the appellant and deceased Bhamra. They accompanied them and came to village Bandala, the vil1age of the appellant, where he provided them drinking water, etc. Thereafter they proceeded towards Achhroni. The deceased accompanied them stating that he was going to his home via Khazra, and the appellant, who was carrying his country made single barrel gun, came with them to see them off. The deceased Bhamra was walking in front of the others followed by appellant Badam Singh behind whom was Basheer Khan PW 5 and then Laxman Singh PW 6. The informant PW 4 was behind all of them with his bicycle. When they came near the pond and were proceeding on the pagdandi, the appellant suddenly pointed his gun at Bhamra and fired. Thereafter he turned back and ran threatening that no one should run away. After running about 100 steps behind them, he started reloading his gun. Bhamra, who was injured, also ran but was chased by the appellant Badam Singh. The witnesses ran towards Achhroni in order to save their lives, but while running away they noticed that appellant Badam Singh had caught hold of Bhamra, who was injured on the left shoulder from behind and was bleeding. The appellant caught hold of Bhamra, sat over him, and killed him. [Para 2
Held: The facts and circumstances that we have noticed above create in our mind a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case as well as veracity of the eye witnesses. The deceased had many enemies, and it appears to us that he may have been murdered by one of them, but the appellant was falsely implicated. The conduct of the eye witnesses is highly unnatural, and we entertain a serious doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence. We, therefore, allow this appeal and giving to the appellant the benefit of doubt, acquit him of the charge levelled against him. Judgment of High Court reversed. [Para 24
(2) Evidence Act, 1872--S. 60--mere consistency of witnesses in their statements --not a sure guarantee of their truthfulness--their conduct may render them doubtful-- their presence may also be suspect.
The mere fact that the witnesses are consistent in what they say is not a sure guarantee of their truthfulness. The witnesses are subjected to cross-examination to bring out facts which may persuade a Court to hold that though consistent, their evidence is not acceptable for any other reason. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the conduct of the witnesses is such that it renders the case of the prosecution doubtful or incredible, or that their presence at the place of occurrence as eye witnesses is suspect, the Court may reject their evidence. [Para 16
(3) Evidence Act, 1872--S. 60--conduct of alleged eye-witnesses unnatural--not relating incident of murder to anyone though passing through two villages--nor trying to see whether victim is dead or alive--continuously running for 2-1/2 hours but covering a distance of one mile--such witnesses cannot be relied on. [Para 17
(4) Evidence Act, 1872--Ss. 45 and 60--eye-witnesses deposing that barrel of gun was close to the back of deceased when fired--no blackening and charring of skin around wound found -- presence of eye-witnesses becomes doubtful. [Para 18
(5) Evidence Act, 1872--Ss. 8 and 60--ocular testimony appearing suspect--motive acquires significance--previous dispute settled amicably -- no motive can be said to have survived. [Para 20
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973--S. 155--belated report to Magistrate--creates dent in prosecution case. [Para 23
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973--S. 374--High Court hearing first appeal--evidence should be subjected to critical scrutiny--facts should also be appreciated carefully. [Para 16
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860&/kkjk 302&çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dh mifLFkfr rFkk vkpj.k lansgkLin&e`rd vusd ekeyksa esa varoZfyr Fkk&vfHkqDr lansg ds Qk;ns dk gdnkjA v lk 5 vkSj 6 ds lkFk v lk 4 dpukfj;k ls vNjkSuh fLFkr vius eq[;ky; tk jgk FkkA og ou {ks= dh x‘r yxk jgs FksA xzke dpukfj;k esa mudh HksaV vihykFkhZ rFkk e`r Hkejk ls gqbZA og muds lkFk gks fy, rFkk vihykFkhZ ds xzke caMkyk igq¡ps tgk¡ mlus mUgsa is; ty vkfn fn;kA rRi‘pkr~ og vNjkSuh dh vksj pysA e`rd ;g dgdj muds lkFk gks fy;k fd og [ktjk gksdj vius ?kj tk jgk gS] rFkk vihykFkhZ] tks viuh ns‘kh ,dukyh canwd fy, Fkk] mUgsa NksM+us muds lkFk vk;kA e`r Hkejk vU; yksxksa ds lkeus py jgk Fkk] mlds ihNs vihykFkhZ cknkeflag Fkk ftlds ihNs v lk 5 c‘khj[kka vkSj fQj v lk 6 y{e.kflag FksA bfÙkykdÙkkZ v lk 4 viuh lkbfdy ij mu lc ds ihNs FkkA tc og dqM ds lehi igq¡ps rFkk ixMaMh ij py jgs Fks rc vpkud vihykFkhZ us Hkejk dh vksj canwd rku dj xksyh pyk nhA rRi‘pkr~ og iyVk vkSj ;g /kedh nsrs gq, Hkkxk fd dksbZ Hkh Hkkxs ughaA muds ihNs yxHkx 100 dne nwj Hkkxus ds i‘pkr~ mlus viuh canwd fQj ls Hkjuk vkjaHk fd;kA Hkejk Hkh tks {kfrxzLr Fkk] Hkkxk ijarq vihykFkhZ cknkeflag us mldk ihNk fd;kA lk{khx.k viuh çk.kj{kk ds fy, vNjkSuh dh vksj Hkkxus ijarq Hkkxrs le; mUgksaus ns[kk fd vihykFkhZ us Hkejk dks idM+ fy;k Fkk ftlds ck,¡ da/ks ij ihNs ls {kfr igq¡ph Fkh rFkk jDrL=ko gks jgk FkkA vihykFkhZ us Hkejk dks idM+k] ml ij cSBk rFkk mldh gR;k dj nhA ¼iSjk 2½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ftu rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij geus Åij /;ku fn;k gS muls gekjs eu esa vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dh lR;rk ds lkFk&lkFk çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dh lR;rk ds ckjs esa lansg mRiUu gksrk gSA e`rd ds vusd ‘k=q Fks rFkk gesa çrhr gksrk gS fd mldh gR;k muesa ls fdlh ds }kjk dh xbZ gksxh ijarq vihykFkhZ dks feF;k vkfyIr dj fy;k x;kA çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dk vkpj.k vR;f/kd vLokHkkfod gS rFkk ?kVuk ds le; mudh mifLFkfr ds ckjs esa gesa xaHkhj lansg gSA vr% ge ;g vihy eatwj djrs gSa rFkk vihykFkhZ dks lansg dk Qk;nk nsrs gq, mls mlds fo#) yxk, x, vkjksi ls nks"keqDr djrs gSaA mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; myVk x;kA ¼iSjk 24½ ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 60&lk{khx.k ds lk{; esa leuq:irk ek=&mudh lR;rk dh fuf‘pr çR;kHkwfr ugha&vius vkpj.k ls og lansg ds ?ksjs esa vk ldrs gSa&mudh mifLFkfr Hkh lafnX/k~ gks ldrh gSA ;g rF; ek= fd lk{khx.k ds dFku leuq:i gSa] mudh lR;rk dh fuf‘pr çR;kHkwfr ugha gSA lk{khx.k dh çfrijh{kk ,sls rF; fudkyus ds fy, dh tkrh gS ftuls U;k;ky; ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, lEer gks tk, fd leuq:i gksus ds ckotwn] fdlh vU; dkj.ko‘k mudk lk{; Lohdk;Z ugha gSA ;fn U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡ps fd lk{khx.k dk vkpj.k ,slk gS fd mlls vfHk;kstu dk i{kdFku lansgkLin vFkok vfo‘oluh; gks tkrk gS] vFkok ;g fd çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa ds :i esa ?kVukLFky ij mudh mifLFkfr lafnX/k gS] rc U;k;ky; mudk lk{; [kkfjt dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 16½ ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 60&vfHkdfFkr çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dk vkpj.k vLokHkkfod&nks xzkeksa ls gksdj dj tkus ds ckotwn fdlh dks Hkh gR;k dh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa ugha crk;k&u ;g ns[kus dk gh ç;kl fd;k fd vkgr thfor gS ;k e`r&fujarj 2&1@2 ?kaVs ijarq ,d ehy dh nwjh r; dh&,sls lkf{k;ksa dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 17½ ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 45 rFkk 60&çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dk vfHklk{; fd tc xksyh pykbZ xbZ rc canwd dh ukyh e`rd dh ihB ds ikl Fkh&?kko ds pkjksa vksj Ropk dkyh vkSj >qylh gqbZ ugha ikbZ xbZ&çR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dh mifLFkfr lansgkLin gks tkrh gSA ¼iSjk 18½ ¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 8 rFkk 60&pk{kq‘k ifjlk{; lafnX/k çrhr gksuk&gsrq egRoiw.kZ gks tkrk gS&iwoZrj fookn dk lkSgkniw.kZ le>kSrk gqvk&gsrq cuk jgk] ,slk ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 20½ ¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 155&eftLVªsV dks foyafcr fjiksVZ&vfHkkstu i{kdFku dks vk?kkr igq¡prk gSA ¼iSjk 23½ ¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 374&mPp U;k;ky; esa çFke vihy dh lquokbZ&lk{; dh vkykspukRed laoh{kk dh tkuk pkfg,&rFksa dk Hkh lko/kkuhiwoZd foospu djuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 16½
Singh, J.--1. In this appeal by special leave, the sole appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, dated 15.7.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1987 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri under section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No. 128 of 1986. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27th September, 1986, the appellant shot dead Bhamar @ Bhamar Singh in the presence of Ram Swarup Sharma PW 4, a forest officer Basheer Khan PW 5 and Laxman PW 6, forest guard, when they were proceeding from village Kachnaria to Achhroni. The three witnesses above named ran from the place of occurrence to save their lives and thereafter boarded a bus at Achhroni and came to police station Banmore Kalan at a distance of about 16 kilometres from the place of occurrence where report was lodged by PW 4 at 23.15 hours. In the said report it was stated that PW 4 along with PWs 5 and 6 was proceeding to his headquarters at Achhroni from Kachnaria. They were patrolling the forest area. At village Kachnaria they met the appellant and deceased Bhamra. They accompanied them and came to village Bandala, the village of the appellant, where he provided them drinking water, etc. Thereafter they proceeded towards Achhroni. The deceased accompanied them stating that he was going to his home via Khazra, and the appellant, who was carrying his country made single barrel gun, came with them to see them off. The deceased Bhamra was walking in front of the others followed by appellant Badam Singh behind whom was Basheer Khan PW 5 and then Laxman Singh PW 6. The informant PW 4 was behind all of them with his bicycle. When they came near the pond and were proceeding on the pagdandi, the appellant suddenly pointed his gun at Bhamra and fired. Thereafter he turned back and ran threatening that no one should run away. After rtinning about 100 steps behind them, he started reloading his gun. Bhamra, who was injured, also ran but was chased by the appellant Badam Singh. The witnesses ran towards Achhroni in order to save their lives, but while running away they noticed that appellant Badam Singh had caught hold of Bhamra, who was injured on the left shoulder from behind and was bleeding. The appellant caught hold of Bhamra, sat over him, and killed him.
3. On the basis of the report investigation was taken up and ultimately the appellant was put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri charged of the offence under section 302 IPC.
4. The prosecution examined the three eye witnesses namely PWs 4, 5 and 6 in support of its case. It also examined some other witnesses to prove the motive for the offence as also the events that took place before the occurrence. Before adverting to the evidence of the eye witnesses we may notice the testimony of some such witnesses. PW 7, Shivraj Singh was the elder brother of deceased Bhamra. He stated that Bhamra was an agriculturist cultivating his land for the last 15 years. Three years back there was a dispute between Bhamra and the appellant since the appellant trespassed of the plot of land belonging to the deceased. There was a quarrel between them and they assaulted each other. But thereafter the matter was amicably settled without any litigation and they compromised the dispute by dividing the plot half and half. Thereafter, they continued to cultivate their respective plots. There was never any dispute thereafter between them. Both of them used to go to their respective plots and carryon agricultural operations. Four days before the occurrence the appellant had come to his village Nayagaon where his sister was married. There was a dinner arranged by Khumana, Vikram and Narayan on that night. Next day the appellant returned home. One day before the occurrence Khumana, Vikram and Narayan told his brother Bhamra that he had been called by the fore
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
