Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Vikram Singh v. The State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 2000 (Indore): against the judgment and sentence dated 4.7.2000 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1999;
Decided on 6.1.2025
Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 307 -- allegation of causing gunshot injury -- country-made pistol seized from possession of appellant, which matches with empty copper jacket recovered from body of injured -- held -- absence of examination of witnesses of seizure makes recovery doubtful -- disclosure memo of appellant not on record thus, on what basis seizure memo has been prepared is totally a matter of speculation -- cannot be relied upon -- defence taken by appellant that while he was having scuffle with complainant, complainant’s son fired gunshot at him which hit complainant, not improbable -- appellant suffered as many as eight injuries, including fractures and gunshot injuries -- no explanation by prosecution -- prior dispute between parties -- appellant first arrested, thereafter pistol seized from him -- but in arrest memo, in column about article seized at time of arrest, “Nil” mentioned -- prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -- complainant feigned ignorance about injuries of appellant and counter-case registered against himself and others -- benefit of doubt requires to be given to appellant as false implication cannot be ruled out -- appellant acquitted. (2023) 15 SCC 521, (2021) 4 SCC 345, (1976) 4 SCC 394 followed. [Paras 9, 11 to 15, 17, 18 & 21
naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 307 && canwd dh xksyh ls {kfr dkfjr djus dk vfHkdFku && vihykFkhZ ds dCts ls nslh dêk vfHkx`ghr] tks vkgr dh nsg ls cjken rkez [kks[ks ls esy [kkrk gS && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && vfHkxzg.k lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk ugha fd, tkus ls cjkenxh lansgkLin gks tkrh gS && vihykFkhZ dk çdVhdj.k Kkiu vfHkys[k ij ugha blfy, Kkiu fdl vk/kkj ij rS;kj fd;k x;k ;g iw.kZr% vVdyckth dk fo"k; gS && voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrk && vihykFkhZ }kjk yh xbZ ;g çfrj{kk vlaHkkO; ugha fd tc mldh ifjoknh ls gkFkikbZ gks jgh Fkh rc ifjoknh ds iq= us ml ij xksyh pykbZ tks ifjoknh dks yxh && vihykFkhZ dks vkB {kfr;‚a igq¡ph] ftuesa vfLFkHkax vkSj canwd dh xksyh dh {kfr;‚a lfEefyr && vfHk;kstui{k }kjk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha && mHk;i{k ds e/; iwoZ ls fookn Fkk && vihykFkhZ dks igys fxjrkj fd;k x;k] rnqijkar mlls fiLrkSy vfHkx`ghr dh xbZ && ijarq fxjrkjh Kkiu esa] fxjrkjh ds le; vfHkx`ghr oLrqvksa ls lacaf/kr LraHk esa Þ'kwU;ß mfYyf[kr && vfHk;kstu viuk i{kdFku ;qfä;qä lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha dj ldk && ifjoknh us vihykFkhZ dh {kfr;ksa rFkk mlds Lo;a ,oa vU; yksxksa ds fo:) iath—r çfrçdj.k ds ckjs esa tkudkjh ugha gksus dk ढksax fd;k && vihykFkhZ dks lansg dk Qk;nk fn, tkus ;ksX; D;ksafd feF;k vkysiu ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vihykFkhZ nks"keqäA ¼2023½15 ,llhlh 521] ¼2021½ 4 ,llhlh 345 rFkk ¼1976½ 4 ,llhlh 394 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9] 11 ls 15] 17] 18 ,oa 21
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellant – Vikram Singh S/o. Bane Singh, against the judgement dated 4.7.2000 passed in S.T. No.47/1999 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) whereby finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted him as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| |
| Section Act 307 IPC 25(1B)(a) Arms Act | Imprisonment 5 years R.I. 1 year R.I. | Fine Rs.500/- Rs.500/- | Imprisonment in lieu of Fine 1 year R.I. 3 months R.I. |
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 14.05.1998, at around 10 am in the morning when the complainant PW/3 Mohammad Sattar Qureshi, a resident of Gram Undasa, was sitting outside of his quarter, and his son Mohammad Anees, one Sultan, Kamleshwar and Peerulal of village were chatting, at that time, accused persons, namely, Babu Singh, Vikram Singh (the present appellant), and their uncle Ratan Singh, whose name was not known at that time, came and started abusing them, and when they were opposed, Babu Singh and Vikram Singh took out their country made pistols, whereas their uncle had a gun, and Vikram Singh fired a gunshot, which hit complainant Mohammad Sattar on his stomach, and he started bleeding. Thus, the FIR Ex.P/3 was lodged at around 10:30 AM in the morning alleging that there was a dispute going on between the parties regarding a tractor (which was purchased by the complainant Mohammad Sattar Qureshi on the guarantee of appellant).Injured Mohammad Sattar Qureshi was treated in the Hospital, and a bullet was also recovered from his stomach. The charge-sheet was filed, and subsequently, the learned Judge of the trial Court, after recording the evidence, convicted the appellant as aforesaid, and being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred.
4. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the other accused persons, namely, Ratansingh and Babusingh have already been acquitted by the trial Court on the same set of allegations and the evidence, whereas the appellant has been convicted, thus, the veracity of the prosecution case is highly doubted. Counsel has also submitted that there was a cross-case registered in the present case, in which two persons, namely, Mohammad Anees who is the son of the complainant Mohamad Sattar and Mohamad Sattar himself were also convicted in S.T. No.46 of 1999, in which Vikram Singh also suffered gunshot injuries. It is also submitted that Mohammad Anees and Mohammat Sattar, who were convicted in the cross-case, had also preferred a Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2000, in which they have already been acquitted by this Court vide judgement dated 13.11.2024, on account of the lapses in the investigation.
5. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries suffered by the appellant Vikram Singh, and in such circumstances, he is liable to be given the benefit of doubt.
6. It is also submitted that the appellant has already suffered more than four months of incarceration, and thus, even if this Court finds that the appellant’s conviction is liable to be sustained, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him, considering the fact that the date of incident is 14.5.1998, and it has already been more than 26 years since the incident and taking into account the ordeal of criminal trial and the present appeal faced by the appellant.
7. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the record, it is found that the FIR Ex.P/3 was lodged on 14.5.1998 at around 10:30 AM in the morning alleging presence of all three accused persons viz., Ratansingh, Babusingh and Vikramsingh, whereas, Ratansingh and Babusingh have already been acquitted by the trial Court. The main allegation of causing gunshot injury is against present appellant Vikram only, and from his
The prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused undermined the credibility of its case, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants under the benefit of doubt.
Prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused undermines its credibility, justifying the acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's credibility, crucial for establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and unreliable testimonies can lead to acquittal.
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
