Maukam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………..OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.13369 OF 2024]

MAUKAM SINGH & OTHERS …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave Granted.

2. Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in

a disputed land, carried out by one of the injured; the

accused, on the instigation of the person who was is

possession of the land, reached the house of the deceased

with weapons and questioned them resulting in a scuffle

ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.02 18:42:10 IST

the three grandchildren; as per the story of the Reason:

Page 1 of 14

prosecution. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but

only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court

of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the

appellants herein were charged with offences under

Sections 302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code1. Two were charged under Sections

324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34; who were acquitted

by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were

convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment

and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted

under Sections 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, for

the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the

deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year

respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the

Trial Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the

sentence imposed.

1 For brevity ‘IPC’

Page 2 of 14

3. On appeal before this Court, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais

argued that there was no premeditation and no intention

to cause death; not even the remotest knowledge of an

injury being caused which was likely to cause death. In

fact, the deposition of ocular witnesses indicate that the

accused carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on

the deceased, even according to the Doctor who examined

him at the first instance indicates that there were no

incised injuries. It was also stated that the injury which

resulted in death, could have been caused by an

accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances it is

clear that if at all the accused are found guilty of the

alleged crime, they can only be convicted under Part II of

Section 304.

4. Sh. Yashraj Singh Bundela learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-State pointed out that the

injured witnesses (eye-witnesses), have spoken in tandem

Page 3 of 14 and it was the accused who trespassed into the house of

the victims; including the deceased, and attacked them.

There was absolutely no provocation on the part of the

victims and it was with premeditation and intention to

cause death that the accused came to the house of the

deceased, armed with deadly weapons. The fact that the

deceased died after 25 days in a hospital, would not result

in a different finding than that of murder, since the single

blow caused to the head of the deceased led to the death.

There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the

conviction for the offences, which charges are found to

have been proved nor is there any reason to alter the

sentence imposed.

5. We have gone through the entire records and

depositions of the witnesses. At the outset, we have to

notice that the ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of

the deceased; which by itself would not result in

eschewing their testimony. It is trite that, merely because

Page 4 of 14 witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to the

interested, especially in a case where there is ocular

testimony. The prosecution unequivocally proved that the

altercation leading to the scuffle occurred in the house of

the deceased, wherein the accused had come with deadly

weapons, clearly with the intention to harm the inmates

of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed

property to offer prayers. That the dispute existed with

reference to the land stands proved by the testimony of

PW-4, a neighbour, who had gone to the house of the

deceased, hearing the commotion. He testified in cross

examination that there was animosity between the

accused and the victims regarding the ownership of the

place of worship.

6. The said statement regarding animosity,

brought out in cross-examination, is noticed by us, fully

realising that, motive of enmity is a doubled edged

weapon. Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation

Page 5 of 14 of false allegation on the part of the complainant to

deliberately implicate the accused. This makes it

imminent that we examine the testimony of witnesses

with a hawk’s eye to understand whether it is truthful or

the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The relationship of the

ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no consequence,

as the possibility of outsiders being available inside the

house of the injured is very remote. It also has to be kept

in mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which

makes their testimony credible and believable

7. PW 1-3 are the grandchildren who, in

consonance with the FIR registered, spoke of the accused

having come to their house with a farsa and luhangi (an

axe and a cutting weapon). The allegation was that the

accused inflicted blows on the deceased, which injury, he

sustained in the mouth and head. PW-1 also claimed that

the first appellant inflicted a blow with the reverse side of

the axe on his brother PW3 which hit him on the head

Page 6 of 14 and legs. PW1 was also hit on the head and hands.

PW11, the Doctor who examined the deceased and the

injured deposed that there were five injuries on the body

of PW1: (i) incised wound on the right side of the head, (ii)

& (iii) abrasion and incised wound on the right side of the

nose, (iv) swelling on the right forearm and (v) contusion

on left knee. This is in consonance with PW1’s testimony.

Contradiction brought out in cross examination is only

that there was no statement made that Panna Lal and

Dashrath Singh, the acquitted accused, had beaten PW1

and his grandfather which was not stated in the Section

161 statement.

8. PW2 stated that the first accused inflicted a

blow with axe on his grandfather, the deceased and the

third accused inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon.

As for his own injuries, he claimed that one of the accused

inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon on his shoulder

and another hit his leg with a lathi. The medical evidence

Page 7 of 14 of PW11 with respect to PW2 indicates abrasion of the

right shoulder and left thumb and abrasion on the left leg;

in consonance with his deposition. PW2 also stated that

the deceased was beaten by all the accused and the first

accused inflicted a blow with the axe and the third

accused hit him with the cutting weapon. The

contradiction brought out clearly indicates that he had

not stated the blow inflicted to the deceased by the first

accused, in his Section 161 statement.

9. PW3 another grandson of the deceased

specifically spoke of the first accused having inflicted a

blow with the reverse side of the axe on the head of the

deceased and the third accused also having inflicted a

blow with the cutting weapon. As far as his own injuries,

he claimed the first accused hit him on the head with an

axe and the third accused hit him on the head, with a

cutting weapon and two other accused having inflicted

blows with the cutting weapon on his leg and on his back.

Page 8 of 14 PW11, the Doctor spoke of PW3 having sustained three

injuries, (i) an incised wound above the right ear, (ii)

abrasion on front side of right knee and (iii) abrasion on

right index finger; which corroborates PW3’s testimony.

10. We have to keep in mind that that there was a

scuffle which ensued after the accused came to the house

of the deceased, with deadly weapons. That they carried

deadly weapons have been spoken of by all the three

ocular witnesses, further corroborated by PW-4, a

neighbour, who spoke of the accused being armed with

an axe and a cutting weapon. The quarrel that ensued

and the scuffle was also spoken of by PW4. The injury

sustained by Than Singh; the deceased, as spoken of by

the eye-witnesses was further corroborated by PW-4 who

had accompanied the injured victims to the hospital. In

cross-examination he specifically stated that he heard the

sound of weeping of women from the neighbouring house

and witnessed the scuffle, on reaching there. We find that

Page 9 of 14 nothing suspicious, to doubt the veracity of the ocular

witnesses, has come out in their depositions either in the

chief-examination or cross.

11. The eye-witnesses; PW’s 1 to 3, who suffered

injuries in the incident spoke of the blow to the head of

the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused

specifically pointed out that there was no cut injury on

the deceased. In the teeth of the testimony of the accused

having carried only cutting weapons; the injury sustained

by the deceased in all probability was caused by a fall.

This absolves the accused especially considering the

testimony of the Doctor that the fatal injury could have

been caused by a fall.

12. The deceased according to PW11, Doctor,

suffered two injuries; both, on the head, one fatal and the

other simple. The two injuries are as follows :

(i) swelling extended from left side of his head near to left ear extending up to middle of the scalp and this swelling was also extended up to parietal region

Page 10 of 14 of the head and blood was oozing from left ear and both nostrils of the nose of Than Singh and for determining the nature of this injury he advised for x- ray examination of Than Singh,

ii) lacerated wound on the front and at middle part of head.

In cross examination, the Doctor deposed that the fatal

injury can be inflicted by a hard and blunt object. It was

also deposed that the fatal injury could be caused by an

accidental fall; which in the context of the specific

corroborated testimony of a reverse hit by the axe is of no

consequence. When a scuffle ensues, it cannot be said

that the witnesses; especially if they were actively involved

in the scuffle and were also injured, would speak of the

minute details of who inflicted the blow, with what

weapon and precisely how it was inflicted. Suffice it to

notice that the ocular witnesses, also injured in the same

transaction, spoke of a blow on the head of the deceased;

their grandfather. The mere fact that PW2 and 3 did not

speak of a reverse hit by an axe in the Section 161

statement cannot lead to their testimony of the overt act

Page 11 of 14 being disbelieved. The embellishment even if ignored, the

overt act stands proved.

13. That, the accused came to the house of the

deceased with the intention of questioning them regarding

the visit made to the deity installed in the disputed

property, has been unequivocally proved by the oral

testimony of witnesses. That, the accused came to the

house armed with deadly weapons also stands

established which clearly points to the premeditation and

the intention to cause injuries which were likely to cause

death. The facts regarding the fight and the overt acts, as

disclosed from the evidence does not commend us to find

an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor falls

under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in

a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The medical evidence, that the injury could be caused

either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an

accidental fall, does not detract from the finding under

Page 12 of 14 Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony;

(i) of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the

house of the victims, (ii) the altercation and fight that

ensued and (iii) the overt acts of the accused, inflicting

injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased and

victims, (iv) totally corroborated by the medical evidence

regarding injuries on the deceased and each of the injured

witnesses; PWs 1 to 3. The fatal injury caused on the

deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the

body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus

is clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by

the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed

into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons

in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims; one

of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow

to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after

a few days, as deposed by the Doctor.

Page 13 of 14

14. We find no reason to interfere with the

conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. The

appeal stands dismissed. The appellants, if on bail, shall

appear and surrender before the Sessions Court, within

two weeks of this order; failing which the Sessions Court

shall take appropriate steps to apprehend them so as to

undergo the sentence awarded.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……………………..……………, J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………………..……………, J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 2, 2025.

Page 14 of 14