Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.444 OF 2008

VIJAY SINGH & ANR.

…APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

…RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

In the present appeal by way of special

leave, we are concerned with appellants Vijay

Singh and Hari Singh.

According to the prosecution, on 16^th of June,

1992 at about 6.30 A.M., a report was lodged by

the informant, Pohap Singh (PW-1), alleging that

while he was at his house, his father Bhagirath

(deceased) was returning home after answering the

nature’s call and at that time, 11 accused persons

including appellant no. 2 Hari Singh armed with

farsa and appellant no. 1 Vijay Singh armed with a

Page 2

JUDGMENT

ballam and other accused armed with axes

surrounded him. Seeing this, according to the

informant, his mother Prema Bai (PW-2), his wife

Sheela (PW-3) and grandfather Jagannath (PW-6)

went to rescue him, whereupon informant Pohap

Singh was assaulted by lathi by one of the

accused. Meanwhile, appellant no. 2, Hari Singh

inflicted an injury on the neck of the deceased

with farsa upon which he fell down. Thereafter,

all the accused assaulted the deceased with the

weapons with which they were armed. It is the

case of the prosecution that appellant no. 1,

Vijay Singh caused an injury with a ballam near

the eye of the deceased and he died on the spot.

On the basis of the report given by Pohap

Singh, a case under Section 147, 148 and 302/149

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred

to as “the IPC”) was registered. Police after

usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet

against all 11 accused persons and ultimately they

were committed to the Court of Sessions to face

the trial. The Sessions Judge acquitted 9 of the

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

11 accused and convicted the appellants herein for

commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC

and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The

learned Judge found the allegations as to the

infliction of injuries, on the head and neck of

the deceased by specific weapon such as ballam by

appellant no.1 and farsa by appellant no.2

respectively, to have been corroborated by the

medical evidence. Hence, the two appellants were

convicted and sentenced as above.

On appeal, the High Court confirmed their

conviction and sentence and while doing so,

observed as follows:

“5………Dr. Kapil Dev Singh, who has

performed the postmortem of the

deceased on 16.6.1992 and found as

many as six injuries on the body of

the deceased, out of which injury

No.1 is caused by some pointed

object near the face of the

deceased.

Thus, the injury

attributed to Vijay Singh is

corroborated. The other injury was

incised wound on the body of the

deceased. All the injuries were

caused by sharp and edged weapons.

As per opinion of Doctor injury No.

1 was sufficient to cause death of

the deceased…………

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

6. After perusal of the statements

of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, we find

that the Sessions Court rightly

convicted the present appellants.

So far as the other accused are

concerned

the

Doctor

has

specifically stated that except the

injury No.1 which is attributed to

Vijay Singh, all other injuries

were caused by the same weapon.

Thus, the other injuries are

attributed to Hari Singh. Moreso,

the witness could not point out

which of the injuries were caused

by other accused, hence, acquitted

the other accused. But so far as

the

present

appellants

are

concerned, there are specific

allegation against them for causing

injuries to the deceased.

“Underling ours”

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are

before us.

At the outset, while assailing the conviction

of the appellants, Mr. Rajesh