Back
2003(2) JLJ 129
(SUPREME COURT)
S. Rajendra Babu, D.M. Dharmadhikari and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M.P.
Cri. Appeal No. 789 of 2002; against the judgment of M.P. High
Court, passed in Cri. Appeal No. 163 of 1986; Decided on 23.1.2093.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior by the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2002, reversed the verdict of the trial Court and convicted the three appellants. [Para 1
The case of the prosecution is that the accused Bhagwan Singh hatched a plan to kill Mata Prasad with the help of the other co-accused. To accomplish their plan, in the midnight intervening 28.2.1984/29.2.1984, they entered the house of the deceased Mata Prasad and by throttling him by the neck, killed him and hanged him with the hook of the door in the house. They also killed his daughter Munni Devi who was found dead inside the house with bums.
The main evidence led by the prosecution against the accused is the solitary testimony of the alleged child eye witness Arvind Kumar (PW 19) who was aged about six years at the time of the incident, and the alleged judicial confession (Ext. P-1) of the acquitted co-accused Pooran Singh recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [Paras 5 & 6
Held: The prosecution has tried to rope in the appellants in the crime and have overdone their job by fabricating false evidence of overhearing by the witnesses the plan of murder and openly discussing about it after the completion of the plan. The said evidence was rightly not believed by both the Courts. Similarly, the evidence of recoveries of articles belonging to the deceased is also an attempt of fabricating some artificial evidence against the accused.
For all the above reasons, our conclusion is that the High Court was not at all justified in reversing the verdict of acquittal passed by the trial Judge. [Paras 34 & 35
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 118 -- Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 161 -- double murders -- child eye-witness naming the accused persons of the same village on 1.3.1984 -- accused arrested on 12.3.84 -- no explanation for delay -- statement of child becomes doubtful. [Para 13
(3) Criminal Practice -- only eye-witness in double murder case a child -- his mate mal uncle the first person he met after incident -- child claiming to have seen all accused persons -- such mate mal uncle is most important witness to whom child could have told the •names of accused -- non-production is withholding material witness. [Para 14
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 118 -- child of six years only eye-witness in murder of his mother and mate mal grand father -- meeting father same or next day -- neither interrogated about nor suo motu disclosing names of assailants -- infirmity is serious. [Para 15
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 9 -- dock identification -- child witness claiming to have seen and identified all three accused persons while committing murder -- examined in Court after about one year - identification parade not arranged -- dock identification not reliable. [Para 16
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 118 -- only eye witness in murder case a child -- statement full of infirmities -- no identification parade held -- material witnesses not examined -- conviction cannot be based on his sole statement. [Para 18
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 118 -- child witness -- sole testimony cannot be relied upon without adequate corroboration. (1998) 7 SCC 177 relied on. [Para 19
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 118 -- child of six years seeing murder of his mother -- would not go to sleep -- he would raise a cry.
The other possibility of the children being fast asleep when the elders of the house were attacked and killed cannot he ruled out as the incident is alleged to have happened in the midnight. Mere presence of the children in the house at the time of the incident is no assurance to the case of the prosecution that the eldest child got up on hearing hue and cries and had not only seen the incident but also identified the accused. Taking into consideration child psychology, a lad of six years having seen his mother being assaulted would have raised a cry; but he says that - he quietly went back to sleep. It is most unnatural even for a child that after witnessing his mother being assaulted by known persons, he would go back to sleep to wake up late in the morning only when his maternal uncle Agyaram came to fetch him and his younger brothers to his father‘s village Alampur. [Para 21
(9) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 118 -- child witness -- testimony not available immediately after occurrence -- possibility of coaching and tutoring not ruled out -- cannot be relied on. (1983) 2 SCC 14 relied on. - [Para 22
(10) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 118 and 9 -- child witness -- no identification parade field -- dock identification cannot be relied on. (1997) 1 SCC 510 relied on.
[Para 23
(11) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 164 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- statement of accused recorded under S. 164 -- precaution of third degree method and pressure on mind or body should be enquired into when it is in nature of confession. AIR 1964 SC 358 and (1995) 2 SCC 76 relied on. [Para 27
(12) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- recording of confession -implication should be told to accused -- should be recorded in question-answer form. [Paras 28 & 29
(13) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- accused in police custody -cannot be supposed to have made a voluntary confession. (1978) 3 SCC 435 relied on. [Para 30
(14) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27-- recovery of ordinary articles -- cannot be made basis of conviction when extra-judicial confession and statement of child witness failed. [Para 31
(15) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 8 -- ordinary civil dispute with one accused out of three -- cannot be a motive for committing ghastly crime of two murders. [Para 32
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860&/kkjk 302@34&ckyd dk dFku fo‘oluh; ugha&cjkenfxksa rFkk gsrq i;kZIr ugha&nks"keqDr lg&vfHkqDr dh U;kf;d laLohÑfr Hkh LosPNk ls ugha&naM vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA e/; çns‘k mPp U;k;ky;] Xokfy;j ihB us vkf{kIr fu.kZ; fnukad 11-3-2002 }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vf/ker myV fn;k rFkk rhuksa vihykFkhZx.k dks fl)nks"k Bgjk;kA ¿iSjk 1 vfHk;kstu dk i{kdFku gS fd vfHk;qDr Hkxokuflag us vU; lg&vfHkqDrksa dh lgk;rk ls ekrkçlkn dks ekjus dh ;kstuk cukbZA viuh ;kstuk iwjh djus ds fy, 28-2-1984 vkSj 29-2-1984 dh e/;orhZ jkf= dks og e`r ekrkçlkn ds ?kj esa çfo"V gq, rFkk mldk xyk ?kksaV dj mls ekj Mkyk vkSj edku ds }kj dh daqMh ls mls yVdk fn;kA mUgksaus mldh iq=h eqUuhnsoh dks Hkh ekj Mkyk tks ?kj ds Hkhrj tyus dh {kfr;ksa ds lkFk e`r ikbZ xbZA vfHk;kstui{k }kjk vfHk;qDr ds fo#) is‘k fd;k x;k eq[; lk{; vfHkdfFkr cky lk{kh vjfoan dqekj ¼v lk 19½ dk] ftldh vk;q ?kVuk ds le; yxHkx Ng o"kZ Fkh] ,dek= ifjlk{; rFkk nks"keqDr lg&vfHkqDr iwjuflag dh naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 164 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr vfHkdfFkr U;kf;d laLohÑfr ¼çn‘kZ ih&1½ gSA ¿iSjk 5 ,oa 6 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vfHk;kstui{k us vihykFkhZx.k dks vijk/k esa Q¡lkus dk ç;kl fd;k gS rFkk gR;k dh ;kstuk lk{khx.k }kjk lqus tkus vkSj ;kstuk iwjh gksus ds i‘pkr~ mlds ckjs esa [kqYye[kqYyk ppkZ djus dk feF;k lk{; x<+ dj vfr‘k;ksfDr dh xbZ gSA mDr lk{; ij nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk Bhd gh fo‘okl ugha fd;k x;kA blh çdkj] e`rd dh oLrqvksa dh cjkenxh dk lk{; Hkh vfHk;qDr ds fo#) Ñf=e lk{; x<+us dk ç;Ru gSA mi;qZDr leLr dkj.ko‘k gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk ikfjr nks"keqfDr dk vf/ker mPp U;k;ky; }kjk myVk tkuk fcYdqy Hkh U;k;ksfpr ugha FkkA ¿iSjk 34 ,oa 35 ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118&naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 161&nksgjh gR;k&çR;{kn‘khZ cky lk{kh us 1-3-1984 dks mlh xk¡o ds vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dk uke fy;k&vfHkqDrx.k 12-3-1984 dks fxj¶rkj gq,&foyac ds fy, Li"Vhdj.k ugha&ckyd dk dFku lansgtud gks tkrk gSA ¿iSjk 13 ¼3½ nkafMd çFkk&nksgjh gR;kvksa ds ekeys esa ,dek= çR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh ,d ckyd&?kVuk ds i‘pkr~ ftl O;fDr ls og çFke feyk] og ckyd dk ekek&ckyd }kjk lHkh vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks ns[kus dk nkok&;g ekek lokZf/kd egRoiw.kZ lk{kh gS ftls ckyd vfHk;qDrx.k ds uke crk ldrk Fkk&mls is‘k ugha djuk egRoiw.kZ lk{kh jksduk gSA ¿iSjk 14 ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118&Ng o"khZ; ckyd viuh ekrk rFkk ukuk dh gR;k dk ,dek= çR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh&mlh fnu vFkok vxys fnu firk ls feyk&u mlls iwNk x;k] u mlus gh Loçsj.kk ls vkØe.kdkfj;ksa us uke çdV fd,&‘kSfFkY; xaHkhj gSaA ¿iSjk 15 ¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 9&Uk;ky; esa ‘kuk[r&gRk fd, tkrs le; lHkh rhu vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks ns[kus rFkk igpkuus dk cky lk{kh dk nkok&yxHkx ,d o"kZ i‘pkr~ U;k;ky; esa ijh{kk&‘kuk[r ijsM dk bartke ugha fd;k x;k&Uk;ky; esa ‘kuk[r voyacuh; ugha gSA ¿iSjk 16 ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118&gRk ds ekeys dk ,dek= çR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh ,d ckyd&dFku ‘kSfFkY; ls ifjiw.kZ&‘kuk[r ijsM ugha dh xbZ&egRoiw.kZ lk{khx.k ijhf{kr ugha&nks"kflf) mlds ,dek= dFku ij vk/kkfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿iSjk 18 ¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118&cky lk{kh&ikZIr laiqf"V ds fcuk mlds ,dek= ifjlk{; dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼1998½ 7 ,l lh lh 177 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 19 ¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118&Ng o"khZ; ckyd viuh ekrk dh gR;k ns[kdj&lks,xk ugha&&fpYyk,xkA tc ?kj ds cM+ksa ij geyk fd;k x;k rFkk mUgsa ekjk x;k] rc cPpksa ds xgjh uhan esa gksus dh vU; laHkkouk oftZr ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd ?kVuk dk e/;jkf= dks ?kfVr gksuk vfHkdfFkr gSA ?kVuk ds le; ?kj esa cPpksa dh mifLFkfr ek= ls vfHk;kstu ds bl i{kdFku dh çR;kHkwfe ugha gksrh fd ‘kksjxqy lquus ij T;s"Bre ckyd tkx x;k rFkk mlus ?kVuk ns[kh gh ugha] vfirq vfHk;qDrx.k dks igpkuk HkhA cky euksfoKku dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] vius ekrk ij geyk gksrs ns[kdj Ng o"khZ; ckyd fpYykrk( ijarq mldk dguk gS fd og pqipki okil lks x;kA ,d ckyd ds fy, Hkh ;g vR;r vLokHkkfod gS fd tkus&igpkus O;fDr;ksa }kjk viuh ekrk ij geyk lkf{;r djus ds i‘pkr~ og okil lks tkrk vkSj çkr% nsj ls rHkh tkxrk tc mldk ekek vkKkjke mls vkSj mlds NksVs Hkkb;ksa dks muds firk ds xzke vkyeiqj ys tkus ds fy, ysus vk;kA ¿iSjk 21 ¼9½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118&cky lk{kh&ifjlk{; ?kVuk ds rqjar i‘pkr~ miyC/k ugha&fl[kk, i<+k, tkus dh laHkkouk oftZr ugha&voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼1983½ 2 ,l lh lh 14 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 22 ¼10½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 118 rFkk 9&cky lk{kh&‘kuk[r ijsM ugha dh xbZ&Uk;ky; esa ‘kuk[r dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼1997½ 1 ,l lh lh 510 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 23 ¼11½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973&/kkjk 164&lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 24&/kkjk 164 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr vfHk;qDr dk dFku&laLohÑfr dh çÑfr dk gks rc r`rh; fMxzh i)fr rFkk ekufld vFkok ‘kkjhfjd ncko dh iwokZfo/kkuh dh tk¡p dh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 358 rFkk ¼1995½ 2 ,l lh lh 76 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 27 ¼12½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 24&laLohÑfr dk vfHkys[ku&vfHkqDr dks mldk fufgrkFkZ crk;k tkuk pkfg,&ç‘uksÙkj ç:i esa vfHkfyf[kr gksuk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 28 ,oa 29 ¼13½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 24&vfHkqDr iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa&LosPNk ls laLohÑfr dh gks ,slh /kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼1978½ 3 ,l lh lh 435 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 30 ¼14½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 27&lkekU oLrqvksa dh cjkenxh&Ukf;dsrj laLohÑfr rFkk cky lk{kh dk dFku foQy jgs gksa rc nks"kflf) dk vk/kkj ugha cukbZ tk ldrhA ¼15½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 8&rhu esa ls ,d vfHk;qDr ds lkFk lkekU; flfoy fookn&nks gR;kvksa dk Hk;adj vijk/k djus dk gsrq ugha gks ldrkA ¿iSjk 32
Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior by the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2002, reversed the verdict of the trial Court and convicted the three appellants before us for the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with directions that they shall suffer RI for one year in default of payment of fine.
2. The present three appellants were acquitted along with the co-accused Pooran Singh by the Court of Special Judge, Bhind by the judgment dated 6.9.1985 for offences alleged to have been committed by them under sections 302/34, 396, 460, 404 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sections 11/13 of the M.P. (Dacoity Vihavaran Kshetra) Adhiniyam, 1981.
3. The charge against them was that on the intervening night of 28.2.1984/29.2.1984, they entered the house of the deceased Mata Prasad. They killed him and hanged him in the house and also killed his daughter Munni Devi.
4. The case of the prosecution set up against the three accused and the fourth accused Pooran Singh is as follows:
The motive of the crime is alleged to be a civil dispute pending in the civil Court between the accused Bhagwan Singh with his father Dayaram as one party and the deceased Mata Prasad as their adversary. They all lived in the neighbourhood of each other in Village Murawali, Tahsil Lahar, PS Daboh, District Bhind. The civil dispute was regarding opening of a door for access to the chabutra between the houses of the parties. The deceased had filed Civil Suit No. 566-A of 1986 and obtained an injunction on 20.10.1983 against the accused Bhagwan Singh restraining the latter from opening any door 0r window towards the chabutra of the plaintiff.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Bhagwan Singh, therefore, hatched a plan to kill Mata Prasad with the help of the other co-accused. To accomplish their plan, in the midnight intervening 28.2.1984/29.2.1984, they entered the house of the deceased Mata Prasad and by throttling him by the neck, killed him and hanged him with the hook of the door in the house. They also killed his daughter Munni Devi who was found dead inside the house with bums.
6. The main evidence led by the prosecution against the accused is the solitary testimony of the alleged child eye witness Arvind Kumar (PW 19) who was aged about six years at the time of the incident, and the alleged judicial confession (Ext. P-1) of the acquitted co-accused Pooran Singh recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'CrPC') by Shri D.K. Palliwal (PW 1), Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahar.
7. The other corroborative evidence relied by the prosecution is of the alleged conspiracy regarding which the talks took place between the accused prior to and after the incident and were said to have been overheard by Kalka (PW 10), Kamlesh (PW 12), Deenanath (PW 17) and corroborated by Radheyshyam (PW 20), husband of deceased Munni Devi. The prosecution also led evidence that on information of the accused, domestic articles and valuables belonging to the house of the deceased were recovered from the possession of the accused.
8. At the outset, we may state that the oral evidence led by the prosecution against the accused of hatching a plan and talking about it before and after its accomplishment, which was allegedly overheard by the witnesses has not been believed both by the trial Court as also the High Court. The trial Court also totally rejected the evidence of the alleged recovery of articles on the alleged information of the accused but the High. Court has made a mention of recovery of a few domestic articles as a corroborative evidence against the accused with which we shall deal at the appropriate stage of our judgment.
9. The High Court in reversing the verdict of acquittal and in convicting the three accused before us as appellants has mainly relied on the eyewitness account of the child witness Arvind
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
