Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Mahendra Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 764, 765 of 2021
Decided On : 03-06-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 and 148 – Murder and rioting – Common object – Life sentence – Evidence of informant would fall in category of wholly unreliable witness – As such, no conviction could be based solely on his testimony – Corroboration sought by High Court from medical evidence was not justified – Medical evidence could only establish that death was homicidal – However, it could not have been used to corroborate version of informant that he has witnessed incident – Only because motive is established, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – As such, accused are entitled to be given benefit of doubt – Appellants acquitted of charges charged with. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – When witness is “wholly reliable”, Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on testimony of such single witness – Equally, if Court finds that witness is “wholly unreliable”, there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on testimony of such witness – It is only in third category of witnesses that Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial – Same treatment is required to be given to defence witnesses) as is to be given to prosecution witnesses. (Paras 13 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Both these appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.764 of 2021, filed by Mahendra Singh (accused No.3), Pritam Singh (accused No.4) and Shambhu Singh (accused No.9); and Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2021, filed by Lakhan Singh (accused No.11), challenge the judgment dated 6th August, 2019, delivered by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal No.317 of 2000, thereby dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants and upholding their conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and imposing the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC; and life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment dated 6th August, 2019, delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.317 of 2000 as well as the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No.248 of 1996 are quashed and set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges charged with. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - Same treatment is required for defence witnesses as for prosecution witnesses (!) . - Witnesses are classified as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither; Amol Singh (PW-6) is wholly unreliable, so conviction cannot be based solely on his testimony (!) (!) . - Merely establishing motive is not sufficient to sustain conviction (!) .
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Both these appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 2021, filed by Mahendra Singh (accused No. 3), Pritam Singh (accused No. 4) and Shambhu Singh (accused No. 9) and Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2021, filed by Lakhan Singh (accused No. 11), challenge the judgment dated 6th August, 2019, delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2000, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants and upholding their conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and imposing the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under.
3. The investigation in the present case was set in motion on the basis of the oral report of Amol Singh (PW-6), on the basis of which a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) Exhibit P7, came to be registered. It is stated by Amol Singh (PW-6) in the FIR that on 12th June, 1994, when he was returning from Basoda, he had met his brother Bhagat Singh (deceased) at about 6:00 p.m. and had also met Akhe Singh (PW4). He further stated that they boarded a bus from Nayi Sarak till Chak Ranapur. After reaching Chak Ranapur, they walked towards their village Budhor. At about 7.00 p.m. when they reached village Ratanpur, he was walking ahead, followed by Akhe Singh (PW4), who in turn, was followed by Bhagat Singh, he heard the cries of his brother Bhagat Singh and when he turned, he saw Shambhu Rajput hitting Bhagat Singh with a ballam; accused Santosh, Lakhan, Mahendra and Pritam had also assaulted Bhagat Singh with ballam, causing injury on front side of the body; accusedPadam Singh had hit Bhagat Singh with a rod; accused-Dashrat Singh had assaulted Bhagat Singh with a lathi on his head and three others hit Bhagat Singh with sticks. He further stated that when the accused charged to assault the complainant-Amol Singh (PW-6) and Akhe Singh (PW-4), they started running for their life and reached village Budhor and narrated the incident to Deewan Singh, Pooran Singh, Mokam Singh, etc. He has further stated that all of them had come back to the spot of incident and found Bhagat Singh dead. They hired a tractor of Veer Singh and took the dead-body to the Police Station. It is his case that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased on account of previous enmity.
4. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against 11 accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Ganj Basoda District Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”). Charges were framed against all the 11 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
5. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted Bharat Singh (accused No. 1), Vishwanath Singh (accused No. 2), Dashrath Singh (accused No. 5), Padam Singh (accused No. 6), Bana Lal alias Bana Singh (accused No. 8) and Pappu alias Kuber Singh (accused No. 10) vide judgment dated 18th April, 2000. However, by the same judgment dated 18th April, 2000, the Trial Court convicted Mahendra Singh (accused No. 3), Pritam Singh (accused No. 4), Santosh (accused No. 7), Shambhu Singh (accused No. 9) and Lakhan Singh (accused No. 11) for the offences punishable under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also sentenced to suffer rig
(1) Appreciation of evidence – Same treatment is required to be given to defence witnesses as is to be given to prosecution witnesses.(2) Murder – Only because motive is established, conviction canno....
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
The conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness is unsustainable without corroboration, especially when the witness's reliability is questioned.
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimony due to delays and contradictions cannot be sustained, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence to establish guilt, especially when relying on the testimony of a sole eyewitness.
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the testimony of a sole eyewitness to be wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence, failing which the accused may be e....
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
