IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Kaptan Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 1065 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 1016 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2014
Decided On : 31-10-2022
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - Criminal Appeal Number 825/2011 (Kaptan Singh Vs. State of M.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 840/2011 (Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 876/2011 (Dinesh Jat Vs. State of M.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 101/2014 (Cheeku Vs. State of M.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 1016/2015 (Balli Vs. State of M.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 1065/2013 (Rustam Vs. State of M.P.) have been filed against the judgment dated 26-9-2011 passed by Ms. Shobha Porwal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Gwalior in S.T. No. 216/2007, by which the following Appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
| S.No. | Appellant | Convicted under Section | Sentence |
| 1 | Dinesh Jat | 302/149 IPC (3 Counts) | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default 1 year R.I. (3 counts) |
|
|
| 326/149 IPC | 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month R.I. |
|
|
| 147,148 of IPC | No separate sentence for offence under Section 147 IPC 1 year R.I. for offence under Section 148 IPC |
| 2 | Mohar Singh | 302/149 IPC (3 Counts) | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default 1 year R.I. (3 counts) |
|
|
| 326/149 IPC | 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month R.I. |
|
|
| 147,148 of IPC | No separate sentence for offence under Section 147 IPC 1 year R.I. for offence under Section 148 IPC |
| 3 | Kaptan Singh | 302/149 IPC (3 Counts) | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default 1 year R.I. (3 counts) |
|
|
| 326/149 IPC | 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 1 month R.I. |
4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the complainant Hariom lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 17-7-2006 at 1:00 A.M. in the night on the allegations that, Sughar Singh is his younger brother and was a Councilor from Ward No. 25, Jaderua. An enmity had developed between his family and the family of Rustam Singh Yadav on the question of elections. During the elections, Rustam Singh had fired at his brother and from thereafter, Rustam, Mahendra and their father Sitaram had shifted from the village and were hatching conspiracy for killing Sughar Singh. About 4-5 months back, Sughar Singh had come to know about the conspiracy hatched by Sitaram, Rustam and Mahendra, and accordingly, he had a dispute with Sitaram. Day before yesterday, Cheeku, Mohar Singh and Kallu had come to the house on a Cream colour Scorpio jeep and had collected information about Sughar Singh. This witness had warned Sughar Singh. At about 8:30 in the night, the complainant had gone towards Pinto Park and was standing near Bajrang Kirana Store. He heard the noise of gun shots and saw that gun shots were being fired on his Safari vehicle. Rustam, Mohar Singh, Kallu, Cheeku @ Mohan Singh, Balli son of Shivcharan came down from the cream coloured Scorpio. Cheeku, Balli and Kallu were having .315 bore guns, whereas Mohar Singh was having .12 bore and Rustam was having .315 mouzer. They started firing indiscriminately and attacked on his brother Sughar Singh as a result, Jagdish, the driver lost his life on the spot itself, whereas he took his brother to the hospital, where he was declared dead, Yuvraj is getting himself treated as he is injured and one more person namely Sintu has also died in shootout. 3-4 more persons were with Rustam Singh who had also deboarded from the vehicle and were armed with firearms and had also fired. Thereafter, all the accused persons went away in their Scorpio vehicle. It was also alleged that this incident has been committed by Rustam Singh and his companions at the instigation of and in conspiracy with Sitaram Yadav, Mahendra Yadav. It was also stated that he would disclose the names of other unknown persons after collecting information in this regard.
5. On the basis of above mentioned Dehati Nalishi, the police registered the FIR for offence u
Achhar Singh vs. State of H.P.
Baleshwar Mahto vs. State of Bihar
Baleshwar Mahto vs. State of Bihar
Balu Sonba Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad vs. State of Maharashtra
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana
Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N.
Chandra Bihari Gautam and others vs. State of Bihar
Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan
Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari vs. State of Maharashtra
Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration (1975) 4 SCC 649.
Gagan Kanojia vs. State of Punjab
Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Jagdish Narain vs. State of U.P.
Jaisingh vs. State of Karnataka
Jaspal Singh @ Pali vs. State of Punjab
Jitender Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Kanakarajan vs. State of Kerala (2017) 13 SCC 597.
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of M.P.
Krishna Gope vs. State of Bihar
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam vs. State of A.P.
Kunwarpal vs. State of Uttarakhand
M. Nageswara Reddy vs. State of A.P.
Maha Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Mahavir Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra
Mallikarjun vs. State of Karnataka
Maqsoodan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Maruti Rama Naik vs. State of Maharashtra
Mathai Methews vs. State of Maharashtra
Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P.
Mohd. Rojali Ali vs. State of Assam
Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158.
Nagarjit Ahir vs. State of Bihar
Nirpal Singh vs. State of Haryana
Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan
Peer Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Podyami Sukada vs. State of M.P.
Podyami Sukhada vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Rabinder Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa
Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and others vs. State of U.P. and others
Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P.
Raghunath vs. State of Haryana
Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat (2000) 1 SCC 358.
Rameshwar Dayal vs. State of U.P.
Rizan vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Rupinder Singh Sandhu vs. State of Punjab
Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.
Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das and another vs. State of Assam AIR 2010 SC 3300.
Sant Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Santosh Kumari vs. State of J&K
Sarvesh Narain Shukla vs. Daroga Singh
Sethu Madhavan Nair vs. State of Kerala
Shahid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan
Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble
Shamim vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Sk. Sattar vs. State of Maharashtra
State (Delhi Admn.) vs. Laxman Kumar
State of Gujarat vs. Kalusinh @Harpal Sinh
State of M.P. vs. Kanha (2019) 3 SCC 605.
State of Maharashtra vs. Narisingrao Gangaram Pimple
State of Rajasthan vs. Major Singh
State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani (2003) 7 SCC 291.
State of U.P. vs. Bhagwant Kishore
State of U.P. vs. Kishan Chand
State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra
State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master
Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand
Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra
Suresh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana
Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka
Syed Akbar vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1848.
Tahsildar Singh and another vs. State of U.P.
Vijay Pal vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Vijayee Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Vijendra Singh vs. State of U.P.
Vikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.