Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2013

BALIRAJ SINGH …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1.This appeal arises out of impugned Judgment and Order

dated 12

th

January, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of

High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal

No. 533 of 1994 upholding the conviction and sentence

passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant

Page 2 2

herein for the offence punishable under Section 302/34,

IPC.

2.The facts, limited for the purpose of dealing with this

appeal, as divulged by the prosecution case are that on 6

th

January, 1992, Hira Singh Gond (Complainant—PW 7)

lodged an FIR at Bahri Police Station, Sidhi District stating

that his brother Mangal Singh had gone to the fields to

answer nature’s call, when Baliraj Singh (A1 & Appellant

herein) and Baijnath Singh (A2) attacked him (Mangal

Singh) with lathis causing instantaneous death of Mangal

Singh. Accordingly police registered Crime No. 5/92

against the accused, body of the deceased was sent for

postmortem examination, lathis allegedly used in the

crime were seized at the instance of the accused and

charges were framed against them under Section 302/34,

IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial.

3.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,

prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, while no one was

examined on the defense side. On the basis of statements

Page 3 3

of eyewitnesses, Ramrati (PW 9—wife of the deceased),

Chameli (PW 8—wife of the complainant and sister-in-law

of the deceased), and Lakhan Singh (PW 12—family friend

of the deceased), and considering the medical evidence,

the trial court came to the conclusion that accused were

guilty of committing the murder of Mangal Singh

(deceased). Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the

accused under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to

undergo imprisonment for life.

4.Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, both the accused

filed criminal appeal before the High Court. However,

during the pendency of appeal before the High Court,

Baijnath Singh (A2) had died, therefore his sentence got

abated. The High Court also found the statements of

eyewitnesses to be cogent and trustworthy, therefore

concurred with the judgment of the trial Court and

dismissed the appeal of the appellant-accused. Hence the

present appeal by way of special leave.

5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

The case on behalf of the appellant as advanced by the

Page 4 4

learned counsel is that most of the prosecution witnesses

are interested witnesses, particularly the eyewitnesses

belong to one family and they had a longstanding grudge

against the accused over property dispute between both

families, and hence the appellant was falsely implicated in

retaliation. The testimonies of Hira Singh (PW 7—brother

of the deceased), Chameli (PW8—sister-in-law of the

deceased), Ramrati (PW9—wife of the deceased) and

Lakhan Singh (PW 12—family friend of the deceased)

cannot be relied on as they were inconsistent and lack

credibility. Besides they are contrary to the medical

evidence. According to the own deposition of Lakhan

Singh (PW 12—family friend of the deceased), he used to

call the deceased as ‘maama’. He has stated that he

arrived first at the place of incident upon hearing hue and

cry of the deceased and saw the accused running away

from the scene of offence. But, as per the testimonies of

Chameli (PW 8—sister-i-law of the deceased) and Ramrati

(PW 9—wife of the deceased) who reached the place of

occurrence afterwards, the accused were still beating the

Page 5 5

deceased with lathis. Contrary to their statements, Dr. R.K.

Dixit (PW 13) who conducted postmortem examination on

the body of the deceased opined that the death was

caused due to fatal injury by a sharp and pointed object or

weapon. Nowhere in their testimony, the eyewitnesses

specified that the accused carried sharp edged weapons,

attributing the fatal injury to the victim. It is only before

the trial Court, Ramrati (PW 9—wife of the deceased)

improvised her version and deposed that when she

reached the place of occurrence, the accused were

beating her husband with lathis which were coated with

iron. Her statement cannot be made basis for convicting

the accused as she is very much an interested witness,

more so when there is no specific averment as to who

caused the fatal injury on the neck, leading to the death of

the victim. It was not appropriate on the part of Courts

below to ignore the fact that the eyewitnesses deposed

that they saw the accused giving beatings to the victim

with sticks while the medical evidence suggests that the

cause of death was by a sharp edged weapon. Before

Page 6 6

substantiating the crime against accused, the courts

below failed to scrutinize the prosecution evidence with

utmost care when the eyewitnesses are closely related.

Only by placing reliance on couched evidence, the trial

Court recorded conviction of the accused. The High Court

also ignored just principles of law to ensure that the

prosecution should prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt and in a mechanical way fastened crime with the

appellant and committed serious error by upholding

conviction.

6.Adverting to the above arguments, learned counsel for the

State submitted that the ocular testimony of PWs 8 and 9

remained consistent and duly corroborated by the medical

evidence. There was no suspicion for false implication of

the accused as the eyewitnesses had categorically

explained the beatings given by the accused leading to

the death of Mangal Singh. There was specific statement

by PW 9 (wife of the deceased) that the sticks with which

accused given beatings to the deceased were coated with

iron. The Courts below were at no fault in appreciating the

Page 7 7

direct evidence of eyewitnesses so as to connect the

accused with the commission of the crime and the

judgment of conviction under Section 302/34, IPC does not

call for any interference by this Court.

7.In the backdrop of what has been argued by the learned

counsel for the parties and in the light of relevant material

available on record we may now proceed with our

observations. Admittedly there was no peace and

harmony between the victim and accused groups as they

locked horns with each other over a longstanding dispute

dating back 30 years, relating to mutation proceedings of

some landed property. The thrust of the prosecution to

prove the charge against the appellant was mainly on the

evidence of Chameli (PW 8)—wife of the complainant Hira

Singh and sister-in-law of the deceased, Ramrati (PW 9)—

wife of the deceased and Lakhan Singh (PW12)—family

friend of the deceased, to make an endeavor that in all

probability it was the accused who committed the guilt.

8.We find from the record that PW12—Lakhan Singh was the

first person to reach the place of occurrence when an

Page 8 8

alarm was raised by the victim. In his statement to the

police under Section 161, Cr.P.C. it was unambiguously

stated in clear terms that when he reached the place of

occurrence, he saw the accused running away from the

spot. It was not mentioned in the FIR or in his statement

to the police that he witnessed the accused-appellant

injuring the victim. It is only in his deposition before

Court, with variation to his earlier statement before the

police, he narrated that he was present at the spot at the

time of commission of offence and witnessed the accused

showering lathi blows on the deceased. He admittedly

made clear that PWs 8 and 9 reached the place of

occurrence afterwards.

9.On the other hand, PW 8 in her statement deposed that

she saw accused beating the deceased with lathis due to

which the deceased had sustained injuries on head, neck

and blood was oozing out from there and there was

sunlight at that time. PW 9 (wife of the deceased) also

made the same statement however with some intensity

that the lathis were coated with iron. Veracity of the

Page 9 9

statements of these two witnesses is doubtful at the

threshold itself, as they do not tally with the statement of

PW12 who admittedly reached the place of occurrence

first.

10. Considering the totality of the prosecution case, we

fail to understand that at the time of such occurrence in a

small village, when there was sunlight and PW8 & PW9

along with villagers rushed upon hearing uproar of PW12,

no attempt was made by any of the eyewitnesses or

villagers to catch hold of the accused. This lacuna in the

prosecution case becomes stronger with the fact that in

the FIR it was clearly mentioned, as PW8 saying to the

complainant that upon hearing hue and cry from the field,

PW9, PW12 and other people of village rushed to the field.

Though there was no indication in the FIR on PW8 herself

rushing to the scene of offence, it is however apparent

that some other people of village rushed to the place of

occurrence, but there was none among the villagers who

rushed with PWs 8 & 9 as independent eyewitness.

Page 10 10

11. Thus, it is true that other than PW12—family friend

of the deceased, the prosecution has not made any

independent witness from the village people who rushed

to the place of offence along with PWs 8 & 9 on hearing

hue and cry from the field. The circumstances warrant

application of due care and caution in appreciating the

statements of eyewitnesses because of the fact that the

prime eyewitnesses are related inter-se and to the

deceased. Hence, the prosecution has failed to put a

strong case as we cannot attach credence to the

statements of PWs 8, 9 & 12. The courts below erred in

not applying the principle of strict scrutiny in assessing

the evidences of eyewitnesses (PWs 8, 9 & 12).

12. Further, we find from the postmortem report

(Annexure P1) prepared by Dr. R.K. Dixit (PW 13) upon

examining the body of deceased, that there was a

punctured wound just below the angle of right mandible

over the right side of neck 1” x ½” x 3” and on dissection,

he found that major artery was punctured and trachea

was cut. There was hematoma underlying the whole side

Page 11 11

of neck and in the opinion of Doctor, the injury was

caused by a sharp piercing object. In his evidence, Doctor

(PW 13) confirmed that cause of death was due to

excessive hemorrhage form the punctured wound over the

right side of neck caused by sharp piercing object and due

to punctured major blood vessel, over right side of neck.

13. It is on record that at the instance of the accused—

appellant, police have recovered (Ext.P7) from arhar field

the lathi allegedly used in the offence. However, nowhere

it is recorded that the seized lathi contained any sharp

edges with iron coated. Even it was not sent for

examination of Dr. R.K. Dixit (PW 13) to ascertain whether

the fatal injury could be resulted by it. Moreover, the

record says that the blood on the bloodstained cap of

deceased (Ext. P9) seized from the place of occurrence did

not tally with that of the deceased. Another glaring

deficiency is that Sub-Inspector who conducted the

seizure proceedings and prepared the Ext. P7 (seizure

memo) has not been examined by the prosecution. It is

settled proposition in criminal jurisprudence that

Page 12 12

ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only

corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been

caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use

which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to

prove that the injuries could not possibly have been

caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the

eyewitnesses.

1

In this case the nature of injury,

contradiction about the time of arrival of the witnesses,

contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence,

non-examination of Police officer who conducted seizure

and subsequent improvement by one of the eye witness

casts a serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.

14. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot hold the

accused—appellant guilty of the offence in the present

case. The conviction against appellant as recorded by the

trial court and upheld by the High Court is therefore set

aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He shall be set at

1

Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC

484

Page 13 13

liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in

connection with any other offence.

15. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

..................................J

(N. V. RAMANA)

.................................J

(PRAFULLA C. PANT)

NEW DELHI

DATED: April 25, 2017

Page 14 14

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA

(For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 333/2013

BALIRAJ SINGH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Date : 25/04/2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of

judgment today.

For Appellant(s)

Mr. C. S. N. Mohan Rao,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Mishra Saurabh,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana pronounced the judgment

of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice

Prafulla C. Pant.

We cannot hold the accused-appellant guilty of the

offence in the present case. The conviction against appellant as

recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is

therefore set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. He shall

be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in

connection with any other offence.

This appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

[SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] [S.S.R.KRISHNA]

A.R.-CUM-P.S. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)