Oral evidence - Doctor evidence - conviction - The ocular testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal about the attack made by the appellants herein on Babu Lal is corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons pursuant to the information furnished by them. In our considered view the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants does not call for any interference=
The occurrence took place at 6.30p.m. on
7.8.2005 and
PW7 Shanti Lal lodged the complaint at7.20 p.m. in Police Station, Aalot.
According to
Investigation Officer PW17 P.K. Sharma the copy of
F.I.R. could not be sent in the night and it was
despatched next day to the Court.
The High Court
held that in the totality of the circumstances of the
case there was no inordinate delay in sending the
F.I.R. to the Court. We concur with the view of the
High Court.
11. Babu Lal died of homicidal violence is evident
from the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The autopsy was conducted by PW16 Dr. Prakash and
according to him there were 32 incised wounds and 3
abrasions on the body and the death has occurred due
to shock and excessive external haemorrhage due to
injury to neck, vessels, air passage and vital parts like
brain. Exh.P38 is the Post Mortem Report issued by
him. It is clear that Babu Lal suffered a violent death
on account of multiple injuries.
12. The appellants on their arrest gave information
which led to the recovery of weapons used by them during the occurrence.
PW2 Rameshwar, PW5 Pare
Singh and PW6 Jagdish have testified that the
appellants in their presence gave individual
information and took and produced the weapons from
the hidden place and they came to be recovered by the
investigation officer.
The said weapons were shown to
PW16 Dr. Prakash and he has also expressed opinion
that the injuries found on the dead body could have
been caused by those weapons.
13. There was also motive for the occurrence.
There was a bomb explosion on the day of Holika
Dahan which led to the arrest of the accused, who is
also one of the accused in the present case and they
were having grudge that at the instance of Babu Lal
they were implicated in the said case.
Besides the
above there was enmity on account of election to
Shikshak Palak Sangh and meeting of Nirman Samiti
in the village which culminated in the present
occurrence.
14. The High Court after careful and close scrutiny
of the evidence entertained doubt with regard to the
participation of eight of the accused on account of
absence of overt act attributable to them and gave
them benefit of doubt and acquitted them.
The ocular
testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal about the attack made by
the appellants herein on Babu Lal is corroborated by
the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons
pursuant to the information furnished by them. In our
considered view the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants does not call for any interference.
15. There are no merits in the appeals and the
same are dismissed.
2014 ( June. Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41560
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, C. NAGAPPAN
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1095-1097 OF 2011
Bahadur Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s)
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. These three appeals are preferred against the
common judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1288 of 2006, 1362 of 2006 and
1408 of 2006.
2. The appellants herein are five in number and
were charged along with ten other accused on the
allegation that they armed with deadly weaponsindulged in rioting and in furtherance of their common
object committed the murder of Babulal and caused
simple injury to Bhanwar in Sessions case no.193 of
2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh. The Trial Court acquitted two of the
accused persons and convicted the remaining thirteen
accused for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer three
months rigorous imprisonment each. It also convicted
them for offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced
each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years. Challenging the conviction and sentence all the
convicted accused preferred six appeals. The High
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of five
accused by dismissing their appeals and acquitted the
remaining eight accused by allowing their appeals.
Aggrieved by the confirmation of their conviction andsentence the said five accused have preferred the
present appeals.
3.The prosecution case in brief is stated thus:
PW7 Shanti Lal, deceased Babu Lal and Shiv
Narayan are brothers and on 7.8.2005 at 6.30 p.m.
they had gone to work in their field situated at a
distance from their village Dudhia. In the evening at
6.30 p.m. they along with their servant PW1 Bhanwar
while returning to their house Babu Lal was riding his
motorcycle and PW7 Shanti Lal, Shiv Narayan and
Bhanwar were following him on another motorcycle.
On the way motorcycle of Babu Lal went out of order
and he was trying to restart it, at that moment all the
accused armed with dharia, axe, sword, balam and
lathies surrounded Babu Lal and the accused persons
Aziz son of Wali Mohammad and Aziz son of Jan
Mohammad, Bahadur Singh, Madan and Dinesh
attacked Babu Lal by dharia. PW7 Shanti Lal and Shiv
Narayan tried to save Babu Lal but the accusedthreatened to attack them if they come near. Servant
PW1 Bhanwar proceeded towards Babu Lal and he was
assaulted by lathi by accused Chand Mohammad and
he ran away. All the accused fled towards village
Ranayara. PW7 Shanti Lal and Shiv Narayan went
near Babu Lal and found him dead. They returned to
the village and PW7 Shanti Lal went to Police Station
Aalot and lodged complaint at 7.20 p.m. PW17 Town
Inspector P.K. Sharma registered the case and Exh.P28
is the First Information Report. He took up the
investigation and went to occurrence place and
prepared Exh.29 Spot Map. He conducted inquest and
prepared Exh.P18 Inquest Report. He sent the body
for post-mortem. PW16 Dr. Prakash conducted
autopsy on the body at Civil Hospital, Aalot at 8.30
a.m. on 8.8.2005 and found 32 incised wounds and 3
abrasions on the body and expressed opinion that the
death has occurred due to shock and excessive
external haemorrhage due to injury to neck, vessels,
air passage and vital parts like brain, 12-18 hoursprior to post-mortem. Exh.P38 is the Post Mortem
Report issued by him. PW16 Dr. Prakash also
examined PW1 Bhanwar and Exh.P46 is the MLC
Report issued by him.
4. PW17 Inspector Sharma arrested the accused
and on their disclosure statements he recovered the
weapons used in the occurrence. He also seized the
blood strained earth from the occurrence place, the
clothes of the deceased and other articles. He sent the
weapons with Exh.P43 query to Doctor for opinion and
obtained the same. He sent the seized articles to
Forensic Science Laboratory with Exh.P44 requisition.
He completed the investigation and filed the final
report against the accused.
5. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and
marked documents to prove the charges. The defence
examined DW1 on their side. The Trial Court
acquitted two of the accused and convicted the
remaining thirteen accused and sentenced them as
stated earlier. The High Court confirmed theconviction and sentence imposed on five accused by
dismissing their appeals and acquitted the remaining
eight accused by allowing their appeals. Challenging
their conviction and sentence the five accused have
preferred these appeals.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that PW7 Shanti Lal could not
have witnessed the occurrence and his presence in the
occurrence place is doubtful and his conduct in not
going to rescue of the deceased is not natural and no
reliance can be placed on his testimony and the First
Information Report has been brought into existence by
putting ante dated and the presence of some of the
accused has been doubted by the High Court and that
would affect this substratum of the prosecution case
and the conviction and the sentence imposed on the
appellants are liable to be set aside. Per contra, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
contended that the deceased and PW7 Shanti Lal went
to their agricultural field on the occurrence day and inthe evening while returning to their house on
motorcycles the appellants armed with deadly weapons
surrounded Babu Lal and attacked him and due to
their threat PW7 Shanti Lal could not go near and his
presence in the occurrence place cannot be doubted
and the complaint was also lodged by him at police
station within one hour after the occurrence and all
the appellants had taken part in the brutal attack
made on the deceased and the conviction and the
sentence imposed on them is sustainable.
7. The prosecution case is that the appellants in
furtherance of their common object committed the
murder of Babu Lal by attacking him with dharia, axe
and sword. The prosecution examined PW7 Shanti Lal
as having witnessed the occurrence. PW7 Shanti Lal
is the younger brother of Babu Lal and he has testified
that on 7.8.2005 he, his brother Babu Lal and Shiv
Narayan along with their servant Bhanwar were
coming back from the agricultural field at about 6.30
p.m. and his brother Babu Lal was proceeding aloneon his motorcycle and he, Shiv Narayan and servant
Bhanwar were coming behind him on another
motorcycle and the motorcycle of Babu Lal got stopped
all of a sudden and he was trying to get it restarted
and at that moment all the appellants holding axe,
dharia and sword emerged from the adjoining field and
attacked Babu Lal indiscriminately with their weapons
and they also threatened him and others not to come
forward lest they would also be killed and servant
Bhanwar moved forward and he was assaulted and he
ran away and after the attack the appellants fled
towards Ranayara village. It is the further testimony
of PW7 Shanti Lal that they went near and found
Babu Lal lying dead in pool of blood and they went to
their house in the village and then he went to police
station, Aalot on motorcycle and lodged complaint at
7.20 p.m. and PW17 Inspector P.K. Sharma registered
the case in Exh.P28 the First Information Report.
8. It is not in dispute that Babu Lal and his
brothers were jointly cultivating the land situated at adistance from their village Dudhia. The contention of
the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants is that PW7 Shanti Lal was residing in
Aalot and was not in the company of the deceased on
the occurrence day and he could not have witnessed
the occurrence. In the cross-examination PW7 Shanti
Lal has specifically stated that he has a Kirana shop
and a house at Aalot and he used to come to Aalot in
morning and return to village in the evening and
whenever there was work in the agricultural field, he
used to stay in the village. On the date of occurrence
all the three brothers along with their servant
Bhanwar went to their field for spraying pesticides
and while they were returning home in the evening,
the occurrence had taken place. The testimony of
PW7 Shanti Lal that he stayed back in the village on
the occurrence day on account of agricultural work is
natural and cannot be doubted.
9. Babu Lal was intercepted and attacked by
the appellants armed with deadly weapons and onseeing the same, PW7 Shanti Lal and Shiv Narayan
shouted at them and they were threatened not to come
near lest they would also be killed and on account of
fear they did not attempt to rescue Babu Lal at the
time of occurrence. In fact, they also witnessed the
attack made by the assailants on servant Bhanwar and
in such circumstances, the conduct of PW7 Shanti Lal
in not going near his brother Babu Lal during the
occurrence due to fear is quite natural and the
contention raised by the appellants cannot be
accepted. The other contention that non examination
of Shiv Narayan affects the prosecution case is also
devoid of merit. PW7 Shanti Lal withstood the lengthy
cross-examination and nothing could be elicited to
discredit his testimony. We are satisfied that the
testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal is natural, trustworthy
and credible and has rightly been relied on by the
Courts below.
10. The occurrence took place at 6.30p.m. on
7.8.2005 and PW7 Shanti Lal lodged the complaint at7.20 p.m. in Police Station, Aalot. According to
Investigation Officer PW17 P.K. Sharma the copy of
F.I.R. could not be sent in the night and it was
despatched next day to the Court. The High Court
held that in the totality of the circumstances of the
case there was no inordinate delay in sending the
F.I.R. to the Court. We concur with the view of the
High Court.
11. Babu Lal died of homicidal violence is evident
from the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The autopsy was conducted by PW16 Dr. Prakash and
according to him there were 32 incised wounds and 3
abrasions on the body and the death has occurred due
to shock and excessive external haemorrhage due to
injury to neck, vessels, air passage and vital parts like
brain. Exh.P38 is the Post Mortem Report issued by
him. It is clear that Babu Lal suffered a violent death
on account of multiple injuries.
12. The appellants on their arrest gave information
which led to the recovery of weapons used by themduring the occurrence. PW2 Rameshwar, PW5 Pare
Singh and PW6 Jagdish have testified that the
appellants in their presence gave individual
information and took and produced the weapons from
the hidden place and they came to be recovered by the
investigation officer. The said weapons were shown to
PW16 Dr. Prakash and he has also expressed opinion
that the injuries found on the dead body could have
been caused by those weapons.
13. There was also motive for the occurrence.
There was a bomb explosion on the day of Holika
Dahan which led to the arrest of the accused, who is
also one of the accused in the present case and they
were having grudge that at the instance of Babu Lal
they were implicated in the said case. Besides the
above there was enmity on account of election to
Shikshak Palak Sangh and meeting of Nirman Samiti
in the village which culminated in the present
occurrence.14. The High Court after careful and close scrutiny
of the evidence entertained doubt with regard to the
participation of eight of the accused on account of
absence of overt act attributable to them and gave
them benefit of doubt and acquitted them. The ocular
testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal about the attack made by
the appellants herein on Babu Lal is corroborated by
the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons
pursuant to the information furnished by them. In our
considered view the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants does not call for any interference.
15. There are no merits in the appeals and the
same are dismissed.
…………………………….J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
……………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
June 3, 2014ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA
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). 1095-1097/2011
BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. Respondents(s)
Date : 03/06/2014 These appeals were called on for Judgment
today.
For Appellant(s) Ms. Manjeet Chawla,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.D. Singh,AOR(NP)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar
and His Lordship.
For the reasons recorded in the Non-Reportable
Judgment, which is placed on the file, the appeals are dismissed.
(PRAVEEN KUMAR CHAWLA) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
The occurrence took place at 6.30p.m. on
7.8.2005 and
PW7 Shanti Lal lodged the complaint at7.20 p.m. in Police Station, Aalot.
According to
Investigation Officer PW17 P.K. Sharma the copy of
F.I.R. could not be sent in the night and it was
despatched next day to the Court.
The High Court
held that in the totality of the circumstances of the
case there was no inordinate delay in sending the
F.I.R. to the Court. We concur with the view of the
High Court.
11. Babu Lal died of homicidal violence is evident
from the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The autopsy was conducted by PW16 Dr. Prakash and
according to him there were 32 incised wounds and 3
abrasions on the body and the death has occurred due
to shock and excessive external haemorrhage due to
injury to neck, vessels, air passage and vital parts like
brain. Exh.P38 is the Post Mortem Report issued by
him. It is clear that Babu Lal suffered a violent death
on account of multiple injuries.
12. The appellants on their arrest gave information
which led to the recovery of weapons used by them during the occurrence.
PW2 Rameshwar, PW5 Pare
Singh and PW6 Jagdish have testified that the
appellants in their presence gave individual
information and took and produced the weapons from
the hidden place and they came to be recovered by the
investigation officer.
The said weapons were shown to
PW16 Dr. Prakash and he has also expressed opinion
that the injuries found on the dead body could have
been caused by those weapons.
13. There was also motive for the occurrence.
There was a bomb explosion on the day of Holika
Dahan which led to the arrest of the accused, who is
also one of the accused in the present case and they
were having grudge that at the instance of Babu Lal
they were implicated in the said case.
Besides the
above there was enmity on account of election to
Shikshak Palak Sangh and meeting of Nirman Samiti
in the village which culminated in the present
occurrence.
14. The High Court after careful and close scrutiny
of the evidence entertained doubt with regard to the
participation of eight of the accused on account of
absence of overt act attributable to them and gave
them benefit of doubt and acquitted them.
The ocular
testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal about the attack made by
the appellants herein on Babu Lal is corroborated by
the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons
pursuant to the information furnished by them. In our
considered view the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants does not call for any interference.
15. There are no merits in the appeals and the
same are dismissed.
2014 ( June. Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41560
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, C. NAGAPPAN
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1095-1097 OF 2011
Bahadur Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s)
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. These three appeals are preferred against the
common judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1288 of 2006, 1362 of 2006 and
1408 of 2006.
2. The appellants herein are five in number and
were charged along with ten other accused on the
allegation that they armed with deadly weaponsindulged in rioting and in furtherance of their common
object committed the murder of Babulal and caused
simple injury to Bhanwar in Sessions case no.193 of
2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh. The Trial Court acquitted two of the
accused persons and convicted the remaining thirteen
accused for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer three
months rigorous imprisonment each. It also convicted
them for offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced
each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years. Challenging the conviction and sentence all the
convicted accused preferred six appeals. The High
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of five
accused by dismissing their appeals and acquitted the
remaining eight accused by allowing their appeals.
Aggrieved by the confirmation of their conviction andsentence the said five accused have preferred the
present appeals.
3.The prosecution case in brief is stated thus:
PW7 Shanti Lal, deceased Babu Lal and Shiv
Narayan are brothers and on 7.8.2005 at 6.30 p.m.
they had gone to work in their field situated at a
distance from their village Dudhia. In the evening at
6.30 p.m. they along with their servant PW1 Bhanwar
while returning to their house Babu Lal was riding his
motorcycle and PW7 Shanti Lal, Shiv Narayan and
Bhanwar were following him on another motorcycle.
On the way motorcycle of Babu Lal went out of order
and he was trying to restart it, at that moment all the
accused armed with dharia, axe, sword, balam and
lathies surrounded Babu Lal and the accused persons
Aziz son of Wali Mohammad and Aziz son of Jan
Mohammad, Bahadur Singh, Madan and Dinesh
attacked Babu Lal by dharia. PW7 Shanti Lal and Shiv
Narayan tried to save Babu Lal but the accusedthreatened to attack them if they come near. Servant
PW1 Bhanwar proceeded towards Babu Lal and he was
assaulted by lathi by accused Chand Mohammad and
he ran away. All the accused fled towards village
Ranayara. PW7 Shanti Lal and Shiv Narayan went
near Babu Lal and found him dead. They returned to
the village and PW7 Shanti Lal went to Police Station
Aalot and lodged complaint at 7.20 p.m. PW17 Town
Inspector P.K. Sharma registered the case and Exh.P28
is the First Information Report. He took up the
investigation and went to occurrence place and
prepared Exh.29 Spot Map. He conducted inquest and
prepared Exh.P18 Inquest Report. He sent the body
for post-mortem. PW16 Dr. Prakash conducted
autopsy on the body at Civil Hospital, Aalot at 8.30
a.m. on 8.8.2005 and found 32 incised wounds and 3
abrasions on the body and expressed opinion that the
death has occurred due to shock and excessive
external haemorrhage due to injury to neck, vessels,
air passage and vital parts like brain, 12-18 hoursprior to post-mortem. Exh.P38 is the Post Mortem
Report issued by him. PW16 Dr. Prakash also
examined PW1 Bhanwar and Exh.P46 is the MLC
Report issued by him.
4. PW17 Inspector Sharma arrested the accused
and on their disclosure statements he recovered the
weapons used in the occurrence. He also seized the
blood strained earth from the occurrence place, the
clothes of the deceased and other articles. He sent the
weapons with Exh.P43 query to Doctor for opinion and
obtained the same. He sent the seized articles to
Forensic Science Laboratory with Exh.P44 requisition.
He completed the investigation and filed the final
report against the accused.
5. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and
marked documents to prove the charges. The defence
examined DW1 on their side. The Trial Court
acquitted two of the accused and convicted the
remaining thirteen accused and sentenced them as
stated earlier. The High Court confirmed theconviction and sentence imposed on five accused by
dismissing their appeals and acquitted the remaining
eight accused by allowing their appeals. Challenging
their conviction and sentence the five accused have
preferred these appeals.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that PW7 Shanti Lal could not
have witnessed the occurrence and his presence in the
occurrence place is doubtful and his conduct in not
going to rescue of the deceased is not natural and no
reliance can be placed on his testimony and the First
Information Report has been brought into existence by
putting ante dated and the presence of some of the
accused has been doubted by the High Court and that
would affect this substratum of the prosecution case
and the conviction and the sentence imposed on the
appellants are liable to be set aside. Per contra, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
contended that the deceased and PW7 Shanti Lal went
to their agricultural field on the occurrence day and inthe evening while returning to their house on
motorcycles the appellants armed with deadly weapons
surrounded Babu Lal and attacked him and due to
their threat PW7 Shanti Lal could not go near and his
presence in the occurrence place cannot be doubted
and the complaint was also lodged by him at police
station within one hour after the occurrence and all
the appellants had taken part in the brutal attack
made on the deceased and the conviction and the
sentence imposed on them is sustainable.
7. The prosecution case is that the appellants in
furtherance of their common object committed the
murder of Babu Lal by attacking him with dharia, axe
and sword. The prosecution examined PW7 Shanti Lal
as having witnessed the occurrence. PW7 Shanti Lal
is the younger brother of Babu Lal and he has testified
that on 7.8.2005 he, his brother Babu Lal and Shiv
Narayan along with their servant Bhanwar were
coming back from the agricultural field at about 6.30
p.m. and his brother Babu Lal was proceeding aloneon his motorcycle and he, Shiv Narayan and servant
Bhanwar were coming behind him on another
motorcycle and the motorcycle of Babu Lal got stopped
all of a sudden and he was trying to get it restarted
and at that moment all the appellants holding axe,
dharia and sword emerged from the adjoining field and
attacked Babu Lal indiscriminately with their weapons
and they also threatened him and others not to come
forward lest they would also be killed and servant
Bhanwar moved forward and he was assaulted and he
ran away and after the attack the appellants fled
towards Ranayara village. It is the further testimony
of PW7 Shanti Lal that they went near and found
Babu Lal lying dead in pool of blood and they went to
their house in the village and then he went to police
station, Aalot on motorcycle and lodged complaint at
7.20 p.m. and PW17 Inspector P.K. Sharma registered
the case in Exh.P28 the First Information Report.
8. It is not in dispute that Babu Lal and his
brothers were jointly cultivating the land situated at adistance from their village Dudhia. The contention of
the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants is that PW7 Shanti Lal was residing in
Aalot and was not in the company of the deceased on
the occurrence day and he could not have witnessed
the occurrence. In the cross-examination PW7 Shanti
Lal has specifically stated that he has a Kirana shop
and a house at Aalot and he used to come to Aalot in
morning and return to village in the evening and
whenever there was work in the agricultural field, he
used to stay in the village. On the date of occurrence
all the three brothers along with their servant
Bhanwar went to their field for spraying pesticides
and while they were returning home in the evening,
the occurrence had taken place. The testimony of
PW7 Shanti Lal that he stayed back in the village on
the occurrence day on account of agricultural work is
natural and cannot be doubted.
9. Babu Lal was intercepted and attacked by
the appellants armed with deadly weapons and onseeing the same, PW7 Shanti Lal and Shiv Narayan
shouted at them and they were threatened not to come
near lest they would also be killed and on account of
fear they did not attempt to rescue Babu Lal at the
time of occurrence. In fact, they also witnessed the
attack made by the assailants on servant Bhanwar and
in such circumstances, the conduct of PW7 Shanti Lal
in not going near his brother Babu Lal during the
occurrence due to fear is quite natural and the
contention raised by the appellants cannot be
accepted. The other contention that non examination
of Shiv Narayan affects the prosecution case is also
devoid of merit. PW7 Shanti Lal withstood the lengthy
cross-examination and nothing could be elicited to
discredit his testimony. We are satisfied that the
testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal is natural, trustworthy
and credible and has rightly been relied on by the
Courts below.
10. The occurrence took place at 6.30p.m. on
7.8.2005 and PW7 Shanti Lal lodged the complaint at7.20 p.m. in Police Station, Aalot. According to
Investigation Officer PW17 P.K. Sharma the copy of
F.I.R. could not be sent in the night and it was
despatched next day to the Court. The High Court
held that in the totality of the circumstances of the
case there was no inordinate delay in sending the
F.I.R. to the Court. We concur with the view of the
High Court.
11. Babu Lal died of homicidal violence is evident
from the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The autopsy was conducted by PW16 Dr. Prakash and
according to him there were 32 incised wounds and 3
abrasions on the body and the death has occurred due
to shock and excessive external haemorrhage due to
injury to neck, vessels, air passage and vital parts like
brain. Exh.P38 is the Post Mortem Report issued by
him. It is clear that Babu Lal suffered a violent death
on account of multiple injuries.
12. The appellants on their arrest gave information
which led to the recovery of weapons used by themduring the occurrence. PW2 Rameshwar, PW5 Pare
Singh and PW6 Jagdish have testified that the
appellants in their presence gave individual
information and took and produced the weapons from
the hidden place and they came to be recovered by the
investigation officer. The said weapons were shown to
PW16 Dr. Prakash and he has also expressed opinion
that the injuries found on the dead body could have
been caused by those weapons.
13. There was also motive for the occurrence.
There was a bomb explosion on the day of Holika
Dahan which led to the arrest of the accused, who is
also one of the accused in the present case and they
were having grudge that at the instance of Babu Lal
they were implicated in the said case. Besides the
above there was enmity on account of election to
Shikshak Palak Sangh and meeting of Nirman Samiti
in the village which culminated in the present
occurrence.14. The High Court after careful and close scrutiny
of the evidence entertained doubt with regard to the
participation of eight of the accused on account of
absence of overt act attributable to them and gave
them benefit of doubt and acquitted them. The ocular
testimony of PW7 Shanti Lal about the attack made by
the appellants herein on Babu Lal is corroborated by
the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons
pursuant to the information furnished by them. In our
considered view the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants does not call for any interference.
15. There are no merits in the appeals and the
same are dismissed.
…………………………….J.
(Jagdish Singh Khehar)
……………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
June 3, 2014ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA
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). 1095-1097/2011
BAHADUR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. Respondents(s)
Date : 03/06/2014 These appeals were called on for Judgment
today.
For Appellant(s) Ms. Manjeet Chawla,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.D. Singh,AOR(NP)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar
and His Lordship.
For the reasons recorded in the Non-Reportable
Judgment, which is placed on the file, the appeals are dismissed.
(PRAVEEN KUMAR CHAWLA) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
