Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 146
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
Anand Pathak, Vishal Mishra, JJ.
Indrapal Singh And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2010, 74 of 2010
Decided On : 19-05-2020
Dharmendra Singh, Advocate, S.S. Rajput, Advocate, Vinay Kumar, Advocate
The sufficiency of evidence, witness credibility, and the principle that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 326/149 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 148, 302, 307, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - The court discussed the evidence, witness statements, and medical reports to establish the accused's common intention and premeditation in inflicting injuries, leading to the death of the deceased. The court also considered the discrepancies in timing and distance, emphasizing the importance of witness credibility and the sufficiency of evidence in proving the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2009, where the appellants were convicted for offenses under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, and 326/149 of IPC. The case involved an altercation leading to the death of Nepal Singh and injuries to the complainant, Bunty @ Bahadur Singh. The trial court acquitted two co-accused persons but convicted the remaining appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the case against the accused appellants, emphasizing the eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the accused's common intention in inflicting injuries. The court dismissed the appellants' arguments regarding discrepancies in timing and distance, affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction.
Issues: The issues included the appellants' challenge to the trial court's judgment, citing discrepancies in witness statements, timing of registration of Dehati nalisi and FIR, and the distance from the place of the incident to the police station.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and the principle that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. The court also emphasized that the FIR need not contain all details and that the naming of accused in the FIR is not a prerequisite for establishing the trustworthiness of the witness statements.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Vishal Mishra, J. - Both the criminal appeals arising out of the same judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2009, therefore, they are being heard and decided analogously.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 74/2010 name of appellant No. 2 was deleted in terms of the order dated 02.01.2017, as he has already filed Criminal Appeal No. 45/2010, wherein he is appellant No.1.
3. Both the appeals have been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 23/12/2009 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Session Trial No.238 of 2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/Ss. 148, 302/149 and 307/149 for 1 year R.I, Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 10 years R.I with fine of Rs. 5000/- respectively with default stipulations and there is no separate conviction given by the learned trial Court under Section 326/149 of IPC to the accused-appellants.
4. As per the prosecution story, Dehati Nalisi has been lodged by complainant-Bunty @ Bahadur Singh (PW-1) alleging therein that on 02.05.2007 (Saturday) at about 01:00 pm there was an altercation of the complainant with one Ranjeet Singh on 28.04.2007 and today when the complainant was sitting at the shop of Avon tailor, at that time, accused-appellants came their on motorcycle armed with deadly weapons and started abusing the complainant and started inflicting injuries to him. Nepal Singh who was sitting at the bus stop, waiting for the bus, came there to rescue the complainant-Bunty@ Bahadur Singh, at that time the accused persons inflicted injuries to Nepal Singh, resulting into the death of Nepal Singh on the spot. On the basis of which, Dehati Nalisi was got registered which is exhibited as Annexure P/1 and subsequently, FIR was got registered bearing Crime No.107/2007 at police Station Cantt, District Guna against eight accused persons for the offences registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Cantt, District Guna. During the course of investigation, police authorities have got conducted the M.L.C of injured Bunty @ Bahadur Singh and postmortem got done of deceased Nepal Singh. Seizure memo, naksha panchayatnama and other documents were prepared by the prosecution and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court.
5. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused-appellants, who have denied the charges and accordingly, they were put to trial. The prosecution in support of their case have examined 21 prosecution witnesses and in defense, six witnesses were examined.
6. The learned trial court on the basis of pleading as well as considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the rival parties, has arrived at conclusion that prosecution was successful in proving the case against six of accused person and failed to prove the case against two co-accused persons namely Gopal Singh and Brijendra Singh. The learned trial Court vide its judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2009 has acquitted co- accused Gopal Singh and Brijendra Singh from all the charges given them the benefit of doubt, but has convicted all other accused persons for offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 326/149 of IPC. Against the judgment and conviction passed by the trial Court on 23.12.2009, the present appeals are being preferred. State Government has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of two persons.
7. Counsel for the appellants has preferred the appeals on several grounds including the grounds that on the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court has granted benefit of doubt to two accused persons namely, Gopal Singh and Brijendra Singh and they have been acquitted from all the charges, but has convicted all the remaining appellants, which is not permissible as per law. Other ground which has been taken by learned counsel for appellants is that there was no intention of the accus
