Arun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

2025 INSC 406 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ……………..OF 2025 (@ S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5493 of 2024)

Arun … Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh …Respondent with CRIMINAL APPEAL No. ………. OF 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 6060/2024) & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …………….OF 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 8627/2024) & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …………….OF 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 8628/2024)

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Mohan Singh was killed on 06.11.2009 during the evening Signature Not Verified

hours. F.I.R. No. 458 of 2009 was thereupon registered by his father, Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.03.27 17:09:50 IST Reason:

Devisingh, on the file of P.S. Kishanpura Ganj, District Indore. The time

of registration of the F.I.R. was mentioned therein as 08:30 pm on 1 06.11.2009 while the time of occurrence of the offence was shown as

06:30 pm on that day. Five men, viz., Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra,

Abhay Singh and Ramlal (the last was the only one named as an

accused in the F.I.R.) stood trial for the murder of Mohan Singh and

other offences. By judgment dated 27.06.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 213

of 2010, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore,

held them guilty on all counts. They were sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for life for the murder of Mohan Singh under Section 302

IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They were visited with lesser sentences

for the other offences along with fines, coupled with default

imprisonment.

3. Assailing the judgment of the Trial Court, all five of them

jointly filed Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2013 before the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Indore. By judgment dated 25.01.2024, a Division

Bench of the High Court allowed the said appeal insofar as it pertained

to Abhay Singh and acquitted him of all charges but dismissed the

appeal apropos the remaining four appellants and confirmed their

convictions and sentences. Aggrieved thereby, Arun, Radheshyam,

Narendra and Ramlal are before us by way of these appeals by special

leave.

4. The prosecution’s case was that, at about 05.00 pm on that

fateful day, Vijay Dongre came to visit his friend, Mohan Singh, at his

2 village, Bhatkhadi. After some time, Vijay Dongre requested Mohan

Singh to drop him at Chowpatty on his motorcycle. Abhay, son of Gopal,

the brother of Mohan Singh, also accompanied them to get a haircut. All

three of them accordingly proceeded on the motorcycle to Chowpatty.

After dropping Vijay Dongre there and after Abhay got his haircut at a

saloon near Chowpatty, Mohan Singh and Abhay started back on the

motorcycle. The fatal attack on Mohan Singh is stated to have taken

place at that time.

5. The homicidal death of Mohan Singh stands confirmed by

the post-mortem report (Ex. P-3) and the evidence of Dr. L.S. Verma

(PW-2), who was one of the doctors who conducted the post-mortem.

He confirmed that Mohan Singh had sustained 5 wounds and that the

cause of his death was shock and internal and external hemorrhage due

to a gunshot wound and other injuries to vital organs. During his cross-

examination, however, Dr. L.S. Verma (PW-2) conceded to the effect that

Wound No.1 was not a gunshot wound but was caused by a stabbing

weapon.

6. Devisingh, father of Mohan Singh, had lodged the F.I.R.

shortly after his death. Therein, he stated that, at around 06.30pm,

Abhay said to him that 3-4 persons were beating his ‘elder father’,

Mohan Singh, and that blood was oozing out from his abdomen.

Devisingh said that he went running there and, in the meanwhile, his

3 daughter-in-law also reached there. He found the vehicle of Mohan

Singh parked along the road and he saw two persons absconding - one

was Ramlal, son of Devaji, and the other was dressed in a suit and was

wearing shoes. They were running towards Manpur. Devisingh said that

Mohan Singh was shot and his head was crushed with stones and he

had been murdered by firing a bullet into his abdomen. This was the

initial information given by Devisingh.

7. As many as twenty-five witnesses were examined by the

prosecution to prove its case. However, the oral evidence that was

adduced before the Trial Court by Devisingh and his family members

was, in our opinion, clearly embellished and augmented so as to

implicate and indict the five men who stood accused of the murder of

Mohan Singh.

8. Devisingh deposed as PW-1. He stated that after Mohan

Singh left to Chowpatty with his nephew, Abhay, and Vijay Dongre, the

five accused passed by their field at about 05.30 pm, heading towards

Chowpatty. He, along with Madhubala, his daughter-in-law, and his son,

Mehar Singh, saw them. He stated that Madhubala entertained a doubt

as these persons had enmity with them due to a land dispute and she,

along with his other son, Gopal, went towards Chowpatty. He claimed

that he also went behind them. He further stated that about 10 feet away

from the place of the incident, Abhay met them and told them that 4-5

4 persons were beating his ‘elder father’ and his abdomen was bleeding.

They also reached the place of the incident and saw that there were

people beating the deceased. Upon seeing him, Ramlal and Abhay

Singh ran away towards Chowpatty while Arun and others ran towards

their fields nearby. Devisingh claimed that he saw them hitting with

stones. He said that his son was lying dead in a 10 feet deep pit and his

head was crushed by stones.

9. In his cross-examination, Devisingh said that it would take 5

to 7 minutes from his field to reach the spot where his son’s body was

found. He stated that his son had left for Chowpatty between 05.00 –

05.30 pm. He said that Madhubala, Gopal and Mehar Singh did not

leave 2-3 minutes after Mohan Singh left and added that he himself left

at 06.00 pm for Chowpatty and Gopal, Mehar Singh and Madhubala

were with him. They reached the place of the incident within 5-7 minutes.

Devisingh’s version before the Trial Court was, therefore, entirely

different from what he had originally stated and was recorded in the

F.I.R.

10. Madhubala, the wife of Mohan Singh, deposed as PW-4. She

said that the incident took place at 06.00 - 06.30 pm on 06.11.2009.

According to her, Mohan Singh, along with Vijay Dongre and Abhay, left

for Chowpatty at 05.30 pm on a motorcycle. She claimed that after their

departure, all the accused went towards Chowpatty and she felt

5 suspicious about them, as they had enmity with her husband. She told

her father-in-law, Devisingh, and brother-in-law, Gopal, and they all

started towards Chowpatty. When they were nearing Chowpatty, Abhay,

who was standing on the road, came running and told her that his uncle

was being beaten by some people of the village. She ran and crossed

the road. At that time, she heard the sound of a gunshot. When she

reached near, Ramlal of their village was throwing stones at her

husband’s back while Arun had a pistol in his hand and he was also

throwing stones. Radheshyam was picking up stones and hitting her

husband on his back and Narendra Singh was also doing so. When her

brother-in-law and father-in-law came near, the accused ran away.

11. Mehar Singh, brother of Mohan Singh, deposed as PW-6. He

spoke on the same lines as his sister-in-law, Madhubala. Significantly,

Devisingh did not say he heard a gunshot but Madhubala and Mehar

Singh said so. Gopal, the other brother and father of Abhay, the child

witness, deposed as PW-8. He also did not hear a gunshot but stated

that he saw the accused, Arun, holding a revolver in his hand. He further

stated that he saw the other four accused throwing stones at Mohan

Singh and that the accused ran away when they shouted.

12. Abhay (PW-11) was a crucial witness as he was the one who

is stated to have accompanied Mohan Singh and would have been with

him at the time of the attack. He was about 07 years of age when he

6 deposed before the Trial Court on 24.02.2011. He would have, therefore,

been about 06 years old on 06.11.2009. He also gave graphic details of

the accused attacking Mohan Singh. According to him, the accused hit

their motorcycle but even after the collusion they were still sitting on it.

Arun, one of the accused, then shot his uncle in the stomach while the

other four accused threw stones on his face. He started running from

there and found his mother nearby. He also claimed that he informed the

police about these details.

13. In his cross-examination, Abhay unwittingly spoke of the

events at Chowpatty. He stated that Mohan Singh took him along with

his friend to a friend’s hotel at Chowpatty where they had tea. According

to him, they stayed there for half an hour and it was only thereafter, they

started to the Housing from Chowpatty to get him a haircut. He said that

it took about half an hour to get his haircut. Abhay further stated that the

police had interrogated him only once and his statement was recorded.

14. Notably, D.S. Parmar, the Investigating Officer, who deposed

as PW-20, admitted that Abhay’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

was recorded only on 23.11.2009, that is, 17 days after the incident.

Similarly, the statement of Madhubala (PW-4) was also recorded after 17

days and the statement of Gopal (PW-8) was recorded after 7 days. This

delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording the statements

of these so-called crucial witnesses is unfathomable, given their

7 availability and the versions given by them. It casts a cloud on the very

veracity of their testimonies. Further, the discrepancies in the timelines

brought out by them demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the

narratives of these witnesses are not free from suspicion and doubt.

15. According to Devisingh, they left at 06.00 pm and it only took

about 5 to 7 minutes from their field to reach the spot where the

deceased was found. According to all these witnesses, Mohan Singh,

along with Vijay Dongre and Abhay, left for Chowpatty at 05.30 pm.

Abhay, the child witness, said that they spent half an hour having tea

and another half an hour at the barber’s shop. Therefore, they could not

have started back to the village before 06.30pm. However, the incident is

stated to have occurred at that time or even earlier, going by their

timelines. To compound matters further, Vijay Dongre, the friend of

Mohan Singh, who deposed as PW-5, stated that he had gone to meet

Mohan Singh at 05:30-05:45 pm in the evening on 06.11.2009 and

stayed with him at his farm for about 15-20 minutes. He stated that he,

along with Mohan Singh and Abhay, left the farm thereafter to go to

Chowpatty. According to him, the distance from the farm to Chowpatty is

about 2 ½ kms but it would be 3 kms by the road leading to the Housing

Square. He stated that, after leaving him at Chowpatty, Mohan Singh

told him that he would go to the Housing Square for Abhay’s haircut. He

said that when Mohan Singh left him at Chowpatty, it was about 06:15-

8 06:30 pm. Juxtaposing the versions of Vijay Dongre (PW-5) and Abhay

(PW-11), it is clear that Mohan Singh and Abhay could not have been at

the spot where the attack took place by 06:30 pm. Abhay had stated that

the haircut took half an hour and, at the very least, it would have been

06:45 pm by the time the haircut was completed. The timelines,

therefore, do not match.

16. As the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one

thing, false in everything) is not part of Indian law and jurisprudence and

is, at best, a rule of caution, the entire evidence of these witnesses need

not be discarded because some of their statements are proved to be

factually incorrect. However, their depositions would have to be viewed

with care and caution before they are accepted and acted upon. In this

regard, we may note that the enmity between the family of the deceased

and some of the accused was admitted by the family members

themselves. Their depositions before the Trial Court, naming all the

accused and attributing specific overt acts to each of them, would have

to be examined very carefully, given the variance in the initial version in

the F.I.R. In fact, this inconsistency dented the prosecution’s case in

entirety even against Ramlal.

17. All that Devisingh had reported at the time of registration of

the F.I.R. was that he saw Ramlal, one of the five accused, and a man

wearing a suit and shoes, who remained unknown, running away from

9 the spot. He did not name any of the other accused but his deposition

before the Trial Court was very much to the contrary, as he not only

named them but also attributed specific overt acts to them. Similarly, the

other family members, whose very presence at the spot becomes rather

doubtful, furnished full-fledged details of how the accused attacked

Mohan Singh. In this regard, the evidence of D.S. Parmar, the

Investigating Officer (PW-20), assumes great significance. He

categorically asserted that none of these witnesses had stated the

versions that they put forth before the Trial Court in their Section 161

Cr.P.C. statements. He affirmed that Devisingh, in his statement (Ex. D-

1), had stated as was recorded in the F.I.R. and did not mention anything

about Madhubala, his daughter-in-law, becoming suspicious and about

he, along with his other family members, going towards Chowpatty.

18. The only other incriminating circumstance relied upon by the

prosecution was the recovery of a 12-bore country made pistol from

Arun, one of the appellants. However, surprisingly, no bullet was

recovered from the body of Mohan Singh, the deceased, though there is

no evidence of any exit wound. Further, Dr. L.S. Verma (PW-2) candidly

admitted to the effect that what was initially stated by him to be a

gunshot wound was actually caused by a stabbing weapon. In

consequence, the cause of Mohan Singh’s death being a ‘gunshot

10 wound’ is itself open to question and, therefore, the so-called recovery of

the pistol from Arun does not help the prosecution.

19. As matters stand, the entire case of the prosecution hinges

only upon the oral evidence of the family members of Mohan Singh, the

deceased. However, as already noted hereinbefore, their evidence is

found to be completely untrustworthy and specious. Conviction of the

appellants cannot rest solely on such doubtful testimonies. The Trial

Court and the High Court erred in the appreciation of this dubious oral

evidence and in drawing the proper inferences therefrom. The appellants

would invariably have to be given the benefit of doubt in such

circumstances, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled

against them beyond reasonable doubt.

20. On the above analysis, the appeals are allowed, setting

aside the judgment dated 25.01.2024 passed by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2013 as well as

the judgment dated 27.06.2013 passed by the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 213 of

2010. All the appellants shall stand acquitted of the charged offences.

By order dated 12.02.2025, we had suspended the

sentences of Arun, Narendra and Radheshyam and directed their

release on terms and conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court. Therefore,

as on date, only Ramlal remains in custody. Ramlal shall also be set at

11 liberty forthwith, unless his continued incarceration is lawfully required in

connection with any other case. Bail Bonds and sureties furnished by the

other appellants shall stand discharged. Fine amounts paid by the

appellants, if any, shall be refunded to them.

............................., CJI.

Sanjiv Khanna

..............................., J.

Sanjay Kumar

..............................., J.

K.V. Viswanathan March 27, 2025 New Delhi.

12