Dev Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1415 of 2007

DEV SINGH & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Sixteen persons in all were sent up for trial

for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149,

326/149 and 324/149 and were sentenced accordingly for

various terms of imprisonment. The incident happened

at about 5:00p.m. on the 12th of November, 1997, in the

Grain Market at Rajgarh. As per the allegations, the

16 accused who were armed with weapons such as knives,

swords, farsas and lathis had pursuant to their common

object committed the murders of Ganga Ram and Chain

Singh. A First Information Report, Exhibit P-51, was

lodged at Police Station Rajgarh by PW 13 Babulal

himself an injured witness. As a consequence of the

FIR, the Investigating Officer reached the place of

incident and found that in addition to Babulal there

were several other injured persons as well they being

Gore Lal PW 14, Prem Singh PW 20, Kalabai PW-15, the

Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 2

wife of PW 4, and Lalita Bai, sister of PW 1. The

motive for the incident was that Kalabai had been raped

by some of the appellants and Ratanlal which had led to

the incident. The trial court examined the entire

evidence and came to the conclusion that the

participation of nine of the accused was somewhat

uncertain and their involvement could not be spelt out

beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court, accordingly,

acquitted nine of the accused. The matter was

thereafter taken in appeal by the accused. The High

Court, has, by the impugned judgment, allowed the

appeal qua Hari Singh and Raghunath Singh sons of

Girdhari Lal, and has ordered their acquittal as well

whereas the appeals of Dev Singh, Bansilal, Ratan Lal,

Kailash, Kamal Singh and Devi Singh aforesaid have been

dismissed. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, the learned counsel

for the appellants was not present when these appeals

last came up. We had then requested Ms. V. Mohana,

Advocate to assist us as an Amicus Curiae.

2. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae on

behalf of the appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati the

learned counsel for the respondent-State of Madhya

Pradesh. We see from the evidence that it is based

primarily on the statement of the three injured

witnesses. It is also apparent from the record that

Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 3

three of the accused i.e. Dev Singh, Bansilal and

Kailash also sustained injuries. Their presence cannot

be doubted under any circumstances. Their plea that as

their injuries had not been explained a doubt was cast

on the prosecution story has been rejected by the High

Court by holding that the injuries suffered by them

were so miniscule and so insignificant that the

prosecution was not called upon to explain as to how

they had been caused. We also see that all the eye

witnesses have supported the involvement not only of

the three appellants mentioned above but even of

Kailash and Kamal Singh. The medical evidence also

suggests that the weapons that they were carrying i.e.

swords and farsas had been used to cause the injuries

on the deceased. As a matter of fact Hari Singh and

Raghunath Singh have both been acquitted by the High

Court as they were said to have been carrying lathis

and no lathi injury had been found on the dead body.

Ms. V. Mohana, the learned counsel for the appellants

has, however, argued that the appellants herein were

placed in the same situation as the ones who had been

acquitted by the trial court and by the High Court and

as such the appellants ought to have been given the

same benefit of doubt. We are unable to accept this

submission for the reason that the presence of three of

Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 4

the appellants is admitted and all five eye witnesses

had clearly supported the prosecution version qua them.

We also see that the medical evidence fully supports

the ocular testimony. Deceased Ganga Ram had suffered

as many as seven injuries and Chain Singh ten injuries

and all of them were incised cutting wounds.

3. We are therefore of the opinion that no

interference is called for in this appeal. It is,

accordingly, dismissed.

4. The fee of the Amicus is fixed at ` 7,000/-.

.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI APRIL 13, 2011.