Back
1992 Supreme(MP) 39
1992 JLJ 127
(SUPREME COURT)
S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
Chandra Mohan Tiwari and another v. State of M.P.
Cr. A. No. 36 of 1979; against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1973, reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Indore; Decided on 22.1.1992.
A.N. Mulla for appellants; Government Solicitor for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 -- S. 2 (a) -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 134 (1) (a), (b) & (c) -Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 379 -- right of appeal under S. 2 of the Act -- is all addition to those provided under Art. 134 (1) of the Constitution and S. 379 of the Code.
The right of appeal under Section 2 of the Act to the Supreme Court is an addition to those provided under Article (134) (1) of the Constitution. In cases which do not come under clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134(1) or under the Act of 1970 or Section 379 of the Code an appeal does not lie as of right to the Supreme Court against any order of conviction by the High Court. In such cases, appeal will lie only if a certificate is granted by the High Court under sub-clause (c) of Article 134 (1) certifying that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court or by way of special leave under Article 136 when the certificate is refused by the High Court. Cr. A 120/64, AIR 1965 SC 1467, AIR 1975 SC 1252, AIR 1975 SC 1026, AIR 1977 SC 1059, AIR 1977 SC 2267 and AIR 1962 SC 130 relied on. [ Paras 12 to 18
(2) Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 -- S. 2 (a) -- appeal under -- Supreme Court decides the appeal on its own merits. 1978 (4) SCC 77 and AIR 1980 SC 1199 relied on. [Para 19
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 379 - appeal to the Supreme Court under -- judgment of acquittal of trial Court extremely perverse -- judgment of conviction of High Court may be affirmed. 1985 (4) SCC 80, 1979 (2) SCC 656 and 1980 (1) SCC 677 relied on. [Para 21
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 378 -- appeal against acquittal -- High Court may review the evidence and reverse the order of acquittal. AIR 1973 SC 2617, AIR 1973 SC 2695, AIR 1974 SC 839 and AIR 1979 SC 135 relied on. [Para 23
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 8 -- motive equally balanced -- Court has to look to surrounding circumstances. 1977 (4) SCC 56 relied on. [Para 25
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 8 -- deceased to be examined on next day in rape case against accused -- other circumstances, statement of deceased and evidence of eye-witnesses -- show that accused had strong motive to commit murder. [Para 26
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 9 -- besides moon light electric light also burning -- names of accused told to the witness who came on spot after soon after the occurrence -- identity established beyond doubt. [Para 28
(8) Criminal Practice -- evidence of interested witness -- must be subjected to close scrutiny -- it cannot at once be disregarded. 1973 (3) SCC 241, 1976 (4) SCC 369, AIR 1977 SC 1, AIR 1979 SC 1822, 1981 (3) SCC 675 and 1990 (2) JT 83 relied on. [Para 3
(9) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- F.I.R. lodged without loss of time -- containing names of accused told by the eye- witness to the informant -- may be acted upon. [Para 34
(10) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 156 -- testimony of interested witness corroborated by all surrounding circumstances including F.I.R. etc. -- may be acted upon to punish the accused. [Paras 35 & 36
(11) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 r/w 34 -- identity established -- motive apparent -- timely lodged F.I.R. -- directed evidence of eye-witness trustwortby -- accused may be punished without hesitation, [Para 45
¼1½ mPpre U;k;ky; ¼nkafMd vibyh vf/kdkfjrk foLrkj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970 && /kkjk 2¼d½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 134 ¼1½ ¼d½] ¼[k½ rFkk ¼x½ && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 379 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ds v/khu viby dk vf/kdkj && lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 134 ¼1½ rFkk lafgrk dh /kkjk 379 ds v/khu micaf/kr vf/kdkj dk ifjo/kZu gSA
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ds v/khu mPpre U;k;ky; dks viby dk vf/kdkj lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 134 ¼1½ ds v/khu micaf/kr vf/kdkjksa dk ifjo/kZu gSA mu ekeyksa eas tk vuqPNsn 134 ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½ ds v/khu vFkok 1970 ds vf/kfu;e vFkok lafgrk dh /kkjk 379 ds v/khu ugha vkrs gSa] mPp U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kflf) ds fdlh Hkh vkns‘k ds fo#) mPpre U;k;ky; esa viby vf/kdkj ds rkSj ij ugha gksxhA ,sls ekeyksa esa] viby dsoy rHkh gksxh ;fn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vuqPNsn 134 ¼1½ ds mi&[kaM ¼x½ ds v/khu izekf.kr djrs gq, fd ekeyk mPpre U;k;ky; dks viby ds fy, mi;qDr gS izek.ki= iznku fd;k x;k gS vFkok mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izek.ki= ls bUdkj fd;k tkus ij vuqPNsn 136 ds v/khu fo‘ks"k btktr ds rkSj ijA nkafMd viby Ø- 120@64] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1467] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1252] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1026] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1059] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2267 rFkk , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 130 voyafcrA ¿ in 12 ls 18À
¼2½ mPpre U;k;ky; ¼nkafMd vibyh vf/kdkfjrk foLrkj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970 && /kkjk 2¼d½ viby && mPpre U;k;ky; viby mlds xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf‘pr djrk gSA 1978 ¼4½ ,l lh lh 77 rFkk , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1199 voyafcrA ¿ in 19À
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 379 && mPpre U;k;ky; eas viby && fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks nks"keqfDr dks fu.kZ; vR;ar foi;ZLr && mPp U;k;ky; dk nks"kflf) dk fu.kZ; vfHkiq"V fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1985 ¼4½ ,l lh lh 80] 1979 ¼2½ ,l lh lh 656 rFkk 1980 ¼1½ ,l lh lh 677 voyafcrA ¿ in 21À
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 378 && nks"keqfDr ds fo#) viby && mPp U;k;ky; lk{; dk iqufoZyksdu dj ldrk gS rFkk nks"keqfDr dk vkns‘k myV ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2617] , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2695] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 839 rFkk , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 135 voyafcrA ¿ in 23À
¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 8 && gsrq cjkcj rkSj ij larqfyr && U;k;ky; dks izfros"kh ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ns[kuk gksrh gSA 1977 ¼4½ ,l lh lh 56 voyafcrA ¿ in 25À
¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 8 && vfHk;qDr ds fo#) cykRlax ds ekeys es vxys fnu e`rd dk ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk Fkk && vU; ifjfLFkfr;k¡] e`rd dk dFku rFk izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; && n‘kkZrs gS fd vfHk;qDrksa dk gR;k djus dk iôk gsrq FkkA ¿ in 26À
¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 9 && pk¡nuh ds vU;Fkk fo|qr izdk‘k Hkh Fkk && ?kVuk ds rqjar i‘pkr~ LFky ij vkus okys lkf{k;ksa dks vfHk;qDrksa ds uke crk, x, && igpku lansg ds ijs LFkkfirA ¿ in 28À
¼8½ nkafMd izFkk && fgrc) lk{kh dk lk{; && lw{e tk¡p dh gh tkuk pkfg, && mldh rqjar gh mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrhA 1973 ¼3½ ,l lh lh 241] 1976 ¼4½ ,l lh lh 369] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1822] 1981 ¼3½ ,l lh lh 75 rFkk 1990 ¼2½ ts Vh 83 voyafcrA ¿ in 31À
¼9½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fcuk le; x¡ok, nkf[ky dh xbZ && izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh }kjk bfRryk nsus okys dks crk, x, vfHk;qDrksa ds uke mlesa varfoZ"V && ml ij ls dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ in 34À
¼10½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 156 && fgrc) lkf{k;ksa dk ifjlk{; izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ vkfn lfgr lHkh izfros"kh ifjfLFkfr;ksa }kjk laiq"V && vfHk;qDr dks nafMr djus ds fy, mu ij ls dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ in 35 rFkk 36À
¼11½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 lgifBr 34 && igpku LFkkfir && gsrq izdV && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ le; ls nkf[ky && izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; fo‘oluh; && vfHk;qDr fuLladksp nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ in 45À
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. -- 1. The two appellants, namely, Chandra Mohan Tiwari and Ram Pal Singh Sengar have filed this criminal appeal canvassing the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 17th of November 1978 of the High Court of Madbya Pradesh at Jabalpur rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1973, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the State by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted the first appellant under Section 302 IPC and the second appellant under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.
2. The matrix of the case which had led to the filing of this appeal briefy stated is as follows:
P.W. 6 Ahiwaransingh was at the material time, a compounder in the Veterinary Hospiuli, Budhni. He was residing in one of the quarters situated in the compound of the Veterinary Hospital. On the opposite side of the compound there are Government quarters, one of which was occupied by appellant Ram Pal Singh (Appellant No.2), who was serving as Gram Sevak in the Block Development Office. He is married and distantly related to PW -6. The first appellant Chandra Mohan Tiwari was wielding high influence in that locality and was well known to the members of the family of PW-6. It appears that he contested the election to the Legislative Assembly from Budhni constituency.
3. The members of the family of PW-6 included PW-5, the deceased Saroj aged about 16 years, who are PW-6's wife and eldest daughter respectively. PW-6 had settled the marriage of his daughter Saroj at Dahiyapur, Etawah District (U.P.). On 24.5.1970 he along with his deceased daughter, Saroj, left Budhni for Bhopal enroute to Dahiyapur. At Bhopal he stayed with his relative by name Arjun Singh. On 25.5.1970 at about 11.00 A.M. PW-6 had gone to the market leaving Saroj alone in the house. According to the prosecution, the second Appellant came to the house of PW-6 and told Saroj that her father wanted her presence for selection of clothes. Saroj believing the words of second appellant and without entertaining any doubt on the representation of the second appellant accompanied him in a jeep which was driven by the first appellant. Then she was taken to a house where she was wrongfully confined for about two and a half months. During this period both the appellants are st.1ted to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse with Saroj. PW -6 lost his nerve on the sudden disappearance of his daughter, but he instead of lodging a report with the police, which evidently he thought would adversely affect the future life of his daughter and her impending marriage and also bring the family in disrepute, unsuccessfully made a frantic and intensive search for his daughter. Then helodgeda report Ex. P/10 on 3.8.1970 at the Police Station of Mangalwara, alleging that he had reason to believe that Saroj might have been kidnapped by both the appellants. The police did not take any prompt action on the report. By that time, the appellants, on coming to know of the lodging of the report, devised a plan to forestall any action being taken against them. The second appellant took Saroj in a taxi to Hoshangabad and left her near the police station with an instruction to lodge a false complaint at the police station that she was kidnapped from Bhopal on 25.5.1970 by one Ramnath and Indrasen and was wrongfully confined by them. She was also threatened that the appellants would be keeping a watch over her and that in case she divulged the truth, serious consequences would follow. As instructed by the second appellant, Saroj lodged a complaint Ex. D/15 on 9.8.1970 at Hoshangabad Police Station. However, when she was taken to the Police Station, Mangalwara in connection with the report, lodged by her father (PW-6) she told the entire truth to the police and her parents. Even then no progress was made in the investigation on the report of PW-6 at Mangalwara. So PW-6 made a ferv
