Kedar Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Kedar Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.A. No. 687 of 2010 and Cr.A. No. 691 of 2010
Decided On : 20-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri R.K.S. Kushwah with Shri S.K. Sharma, Counsel for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.687/2010, Shri Atul Gupta with Shri A.K. Jain, Counsel for appellant No.1 & 3 in Criminal Appeal No.691/2010, Shri V.D. Sharma, Counsel for appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.691/2010, for the Appellant; Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State in both appeals, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149, 307/149, 148 - Conviction for murder and attempt to murder - Accused persons convicted for killing two individuals while attempting to kill others during a dispute over irrigation - Ocular and medical evidence corroborated to establish homicidal deaths - Appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder. (Paras 4, 106-110)

(B) Evidence - Corroboration and reliability of witnesses - Testimony of injured eyewitness given due credit, establishing presence at the scene - Related witnesses may provide credible evidence, not automatically discredited due to relationship. (Paras 40-49)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were involved in a violent altercation over irrigation rights, resulting in gunshot injuries leading to the death of two individuals and injuries to others. (Paras 5-6)

Findings of Court:
Court upheld convictions, asserting that murders were committed in furtherance of a common object of unlawful assembly. (Paras 106-110)

Issues: Whether the deaths were caused by the appellants, and whether the evidence supported the claims of an unlawful assembly with a common object. (Paras 26, 70, 102)

Ratio Decidendi: The evidence supported the claim of a premeditated unlawful assembly; injured witnesses provided reliable testimony, and variations in their accounts were not substantial enough to discredit their reliability, thus confirming appellants' guilt. (Paras 30-31, 66)

Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions affirmed with the direction for serving remaining sentences. (Paras 113-114)

Table of Content
1. common judgment for multiple appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background and details of charges against appellants (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. trial court's conviction and sentences (Para 10 , 11)
4. arguments pointing to witness unreliability (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. determining whether deaths were homicidal (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. medical evidence confirming cause of death (Para 19 , 20)
7. injuries sustained by the victim ajab singh (Para 21 , 22)
8. assessing the guilt of the appellants (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. eyewitness testimony corroborating claims (Para 26 , 27)
10. role of the police in evidence collection (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. forensic evidence connections (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
12. contradictions in evidence and credibility (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
13. supreme court principles on reliability of witnesses (Para 39 , 40)
14. ocular vs. medical evidence assessment (Para 41 , 42)
15. post-mortem findings and implications (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
16. witness testimony and its implications (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
17. legal standards for witness reliability (Para 49 , 50)
18. legality of accused actions involving unlawful assembly (Para 51 , 52 , 53)
19. convicting members of unlawful assembly (Para 54 , 55 , 56)
20. interpretation of section 307 ipc (Para 57 , 58)
21. legal rationale behind the final verdict (Para 59 , 60)
22. trial court's decisions and sentencing guidelines (Para 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT

G.S. Ahluwalia J. - By this common judgment, Cr.A. No.687 of 2010 filed by Kedar Singh and Cr.A. No.691 of 2010 filed by Bharat Singh, Devaram, and Rampreet shall be decided.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that co-accused Surajbhan absconded during trial. Two witnesses, i.e., Bhanupratap (P.W.1) and Ajab Singh (P.W. 2) were examined in his presence, but thereafter he absconded and could be arrested only after the co-accused persons namely Kedar Singh, Ramhet, Bharat, Devaram and Rampreet were convicted. His trial resumed and the remaining witnesses were re- examined. In the light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Mydeen Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner, Department of Customs, decided on 29-12-2021 in Cr.A. No.1306 of 2021, his Criminal Appeal No.6213 of 2021 has also been heard simultaneously, but in order to avoid any confusion regarding evidence led in the Trial of accused persons, his appeal shall be decided by a separate judgment.

3. Further, a report was also received from the office of Superintendent of Central Jail, Gwalior that Ramhet, Appellant No. 2 in Cr.A. No.687 of 2010 has expired on 19-3-2019 during his treatment in J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, accordingly by order dated 11-1- 2022, his appeal has been dismissed as abated.

4. These two Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and sentence dated 28-7-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind in S.T. No.118/2007, by which the Appellants have 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

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. 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 irrigatio