Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Surajbhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. A. No. 6213 of 2021
Decided On : 20-01-2022
IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 302, Section 307, Section 148, Section 149, Section 120-B - The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Pahalwan Singh and the absence of a finding in respect of murder of Darshan Singh. It also addressed the charge under Section 307/149 of IPC for attempt to kill Bhanupratap Singh and the lack of a finding in respect of attempt to kill Ajab Singh. The court highlighted the importance of distinctiveness of evidence and the accused's right to fair trial, emphasizing that evidence recorded in a criminal trial is confined to the culpability of the accused only and does not have any bearing upon a co-accused. The judgment also emphasized that each case has to be decided on the evidence led in it, irrespective of any view of the same act that might have been taken on different evidence led in another case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a prosecution story of a violent incident resulting in the deaths of Pahalwan Singh and Darshan Singh, and an attempt to kill Bhanupratap Singh and Ajab Singh. The Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the mentioned offences.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the judgment passed by the Trial Court was incomplete, as it did not provide a finding in respect of murder of Darshan Singh and attempt to kill Ajab Singh. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for writing a judgment in respect of the incomplete charges.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witnesses, the absence of findings in the judgment, and the applicability of distinctiveness of evidence in a criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the importance of distinctiveness of evidence, the accused's right to fair trial, and the principle that each case has to be decided on the evidence led in it, irrespective of any view of the same act that might have been taken on different evidence led in another case.
Final Decision: The judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court were set aside, and the case was remanded back for writing a judgment in respect of the incomplete charges. The Appellant was directed to remain in jail, and an enquiry was ordered to investigate the incomplete judgment passed by the Trial Court.
ORDER
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of IPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 9-7-2021 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind in S.T. No. 118/2007 by which the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
Convicted under Section | Sentence |
302/149 of IPC | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 6 months R.I. |
307/149 of IPC | R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 6 months R.I. |
148 of IPC | R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- in default 6 months R.I. |
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. According to prosecution story, the complainant Bhanupratap Singh Gurjar, lodged an FIR on 16-10-2006 at 10:45 A.M., on the allegation that at about 10:15 A.M., he, his father Pahalwan, uncle Darshan Singh, Cousin brother Ajab Singh were irrigating the field of Ajab Singh. At that time, the Appellants as well as Surajbhan and Dilip came to their field. They were armed with guns, lathi and other weapons and surrounded his Father, Uncle and Cousin brother and started abusing them. Kedar Singh and Ramhet said that they (accused persons) would irrigate their fields first and in case if they (complainant party) do not agree for that, then they (complainant party) would be killed. His father replied, that some portion of his field is left for irrigation and let it be completed. Then Bharat Singh by using abusive language started insisting that he will irrigate his land. His uncle also tried to persuade Bharat Singh that he may wait for some time. Kedar Singh, Ramhet and Surajbhan were having mouser guns, whereas Bharat was having Farsa, Devaram, Dilip and Rampreet were having lathis. Kedar fired a gunshot causing injury on the head of his father. Ramhet also caused gunshot injury to his Uncle Darshan Singh. Surajbhan also fired gunshot causing injury on the head of his father. Dilip Singh, Rampreet, Devaram started assaulting Ajab Singh by means of lathi, Farsa as a result, he also fell down. Ajab Singh sustained injuries on his head, hands and legs as Bharat Singh had assaulted him by Farsa, whereas Devaram, Dilip and Rampreet had assaulted by lathis. His father Pahalwan and Darshan Singh died on the spot. Kedar Singh also chased him and fired gunshots, but he escaped and ran towards his house. Ravi and Brijendra have witnessed the incident. Kedar Singh has left his white shirt, photocopy of his license and diary with Rs.150/- on the spot, which he has brought.
3. On the basis of the report lodged by complainant Bhanupratap Singh, police registered offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 120-B of I.P.C. The dead bodies of Pahalwan Singh and Darshan Singh were sent for post-mortem. The spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Police after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against the Appellants and Surajbhan for offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B of I.P.C, whereas co-accused Dilip was shown absconding.
4. The Trial Court by order dated 23-1-2008 framed charges against the Appellant under Sections 148, 302 or in the alternative 302/149, for murder of Pahalwan and Darshan Singh, 307/149 of IPC for making an attempt to kill Bhanupratap Singh and Ajab Singh.(It is not out of place to mention here that singular charge under Section 302 or in the alternative 302/149 of IPC was framed for murder of Pahalwan and Darshan Singh, instead of framing charges on two counts. Similarly, singular charge under Section 307/149 of IPC was framed for attempting to kill Bhanupratap Singh and Ajab Singh, instead of framing charges on two counts.)
5. The Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution examined Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.1) and Ajab Singh (P.W.2) and thereafter, the Appellant Surajbhan absconded and accordingly by order dated 25-10-2008, he was declared absconding. He was again arrested and produced before the Trial Court on 3-4-2017. Thereafter, by order dated 21-6
Examination of witnesses in the absence of the accused violated the right of the accused for cross-examination, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the appellant.
The judgment reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, emphasizing the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquitta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and its inapplicability to the case of accused appellant Purshottam Singh, leading to his convict....
The court emphasized that when reasonable doubt exists regarding a prosecution's case, it must favor the accused, leading to acquittal.
The presumption of innocence and the requirement for clear evidence of guilt are central legal principles established in the judgment.
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
