Ramvir @ Saket Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024 INSC 308 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1258 OF 2010

RAMVIR @ SAKET SINGH .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated

27th July, 2007 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Gwalior whereby Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 1998 filed

by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated

9th November, 1998 passed by the Vth Upper Sessions Judge,

Bhind, Madhya Pradesh(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial

Court’) in Session Case No. 70 of 1987 was upheld. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16 16:28:33 IST Reason: 1

2. Vide judgment and order dated 9th November, 1998, the

learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as

below: -

(i) Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,

1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’): Life

imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default two

months rigorous imprisonment (for the murder of

Kaptan Singh).

(ii) Under Section 307 IPC: five years rigorous

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default one

month rigorous imprisonment [for the attempted

murder of Indal Singh (PW-12)]

3. The details of evidence and relevant facts are narrated in the

judgments dated 9th November, 1998 and 27th July, 2007 passed

by the trial Court and the High Court respectively and hence, need

not be repeated.

4. The appellant herein was tried for the murders of Kaptan

Singh and Kalyan Singh which took place in two separate incidents

and for the attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12) in the incident

in which Kaptan Singh was killed. Both these incidents took place

2 in village Bhajai, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh on 10th

November, 1985.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide

judgment dated 9th November, 1998 acquitted the accused

appellant from the charge of murder of Kalyan Singh holding that

the two eyewitnesses who deposed against the appellant for the

said incident, namely, Surajbeti(PW-5) and Hiraman(PW-6) were

not reliable witnesses as they had not named the accused

appellant in the statements made before the Investigating Officer

(PW-18) being Exhibit D-5 and Exhibit D-6. However, placing

reliance on the testimony of Raj Kumari(PW-7), Indal Singh(PW-

12)(injured eyewitness) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14), the learned trial

Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above

for the commission of murder of Kaptan Singh and attempted

murder of Indal Singh(PW-12).

6. It may be noted here that the appellant herein is reported to

have suffered more than 14 years of substantive imprisonment and

nearly 22 years imprisonment with remission. However, his prayer

for grant of premature release/remission is not being considered

on account of pendency of appeal.

3

7. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel representing the

appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the entire

prosecution case is false and fabricated. In the very same incident

in which Kaptan Singh (deceased) was killed and Indal Singh(PW-

12) received injuries by fire arm, two persons from the side of

accused appellant, namely, Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv

Singh received gun shot injuries and expired. As per Shri Parekh,

the prosecution witnesses failed to offer any explanation for the

fatal injuries caused to Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh

and thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not

trustworthy and reliable.

8. Learned senior counsel further contended that a cross case

was registered against six persons from the complainant side

including Indal Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14) and they

were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under

Section 396 IPC and thus, it is established beyond all manner of

doubt that the members of the complainant party were the

aggressors. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the case of

prosecution is fit to be discarded on two counts; (i) that the fatal

injuries caused to two members of the accused side namely,

Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh were not explained by the

4 prosecution witnesses and; (ii) members of the complainant party

having been convicted in the cross case, it is trite they were the

aggressors and thus, the accused appellant deserves to be

acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt as well as by giving

him the benefit of right of private defence.

9. It was further contended that in an incident involving

extensive cross firing, the accused appellant did not receive a

single injury and thus it is clear that the prosecution witnesses

have not come out with the true version of the incident and their

evidence is tainted and unworthy of reliance.

10. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the evidence

of Ramraj Singh(PW-14) was not relied upon by the High Court.

11. It was further submitted that Raj Kumari(PW-7) and Indal

Singh(PW-12) are interested partisan witnesses and are closely

related to the deceased Kaptan Singh and hence, their evidence

should not be accepted in absence of corroboration. On these

grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the

impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the

charges.

5

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel

for the appellant.

13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the parties

and have gone through the impugned judgment and also

scrutinized the evidence available on record.

14. We may, at the outset, note that insofar as the Sessions Case

No. 68 of 1986 wherein six persons from the complainant side were

convicted by the trial Court is concerned, it is stricto senso not a

cross case because the charge against those who stood trial in the

aforesaid case was for the offence punishable under Section 396

IPC registered with the allegation of snatching the gun from

Chutallu @ Ram Mohan. Thereafter, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) fired

gun shots at Chutallu @ Ram Mohan causing him fatal injuries. At

that time, Govind Singh and Udai Singh had also fired gun shots

at Shiv Singh, who was standing on the platform of the house of

Chhutkan Singh. Shiv Singh fell down on the spot and died as a

result thereof. These six persons were convicted by the trial Court

for commission of offence under Section 396 IPC vide its judgment

dated 9th November, 1998.

6

15. It is further noteworthy that the Criminal Appeal No. 582 of

1998 preferred by six persons including Indal Singh(PW-12) and

Ramraj Singh(PW-14) was allowed by the High Court vide

judgment dated 27th July, 2007 and all of them were acquitted of

the charge while setting aside the judgment dated 9th November,

1998 rendered by the learned trial Court.

16. On a threadbare reappreciation of the evidence available on

record, we find that there is no dispute on the aspect that the

incident wherein Kaptan Singh was killed took place in front of the

house of Kaptan Singh.

17. There is also no dispute that Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and

Shiv Singh received injuries in the very same incident which

resulted in their death. The defence case is that the gun held by

Chutallu @ Ram Mohan was snatched by the members of the

complainant party and thereafter, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) fired a

gun shot at Chutallu @ Ram Mohan injuring him in stomach and

back.

18. The prosecution has come up with a clear case that when

Indal Singh(PW-12) saw the assailants, i.e., the appellant herein

and his two companions(Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh)

firing towards deceased Kaptan Singh, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) and 7 his camel, Indal Singh(PW-12) used his licensed weapons to fire at

the assailants in self-defence and in defence of Ramraj Singh(PW-

14) and Kaptan Singh. The gun shots fired by Ramraj Singh(PW-

14) and Indal Singh(PW-12) resulted into the death of Chutallu @

Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh.

19. The evidence of Indal Singh(PW-12) and Raj Kumari(PW-7) is

categoric on the aspect that the gun shots fired by accused

appellant herein struck deceased Kaptan Singh on his stomach

and chest, etc.

20. Indal Singh(PW-12) has come out with a clear case in his

examination-in-chief explaining the manner in which Chutallu @

Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh received fatal gun shot injuries. His

testimony could not be impeached despite extensive cross-

examination. The allegation made by Indal Singh (PW-12)

regarding the accused appellant having fired gun shots at Kaptan

Singh is duly corroborated by presence of gun shot injuries on his

body as deposed by the Medical Jurist Dr. Rakesh Sharma(PW-

11).

21. The trial Court as well as the High Court, after thorough

appreciation of evidence available on record, discarded the

prosecution case regarding the charge of murder of Kalyan Singh 8 attributed to the appellant by holding that the testimonies of two

eyewitnesses Surajbeti(PW-5) and Hiraman(PW-6) were not

reliable.

22. However, the learned trial Court placed reliance on the

evidence of three eyewitnesses i.e. Raj Kumari(PW-7), Indal

Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14) so as to hold the accused

appellant guilty of the charge of murder of Kaptan Singh and the

attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12). The High Court,

however, concluded that the trial Court had disbelieved the

evidence of witness Ramraj Singh(PW-14). Though, this finding is

erroneous but the High Court discarded the evidence of Ramraj

Singh(PW-14) holding it to be not trustworthy based on the

reasoning that he did not state as to what had caused injuries to

Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh. Furthermore, even

though this witness claimed to have received gun shot injuries at

the hands of the accused appellant but he was not medically

examined. Therefore, the evidence of Ramraj Singh(PW-14) was

rightly discarded by the High Court.

23. The presence of the other two eyewitnesses i.e. Raj

Kumari(PW-7) and Indal Singh(PW-12) at house of Kaptan Singh

9 at the time of his murder was not disputed by the learned counsel

for the appellant.

24. Having gone through the evidence of both the witnesses i.e. ,

Raj Kumari(PW-7) and Indal Singh(PW-12), we also find that

nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination which creates

a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding presence of these

witnesses at the crime scene.

25. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant

that these witnesses are partisan witnesses as being closely related

to the deceased and hence their evidence should be discarded,

does not for a moment, convince us because in a case involving

gruesome broad daylight double murder by repeated gun firing, it

is unlikely that any of the persons from the neighbourhood, would

have the courage to step forward as witnesses. Even otherwise,

Indal Singh(PW-12) himself received injuries in the same incident.

He has truthfully accepted his role in the incident stating that he

fired the gun shots which hit two assailants namely, Chutallu @

Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh leading to their death. Hence, clearly

the prosecution has given thorough explanation for the injuries

received by persons from the side of the accused.

10

26. The High Court vide judgment dated 27th July, 2007, in the

cross case, which was registered against six persons from the

complainant party including Indal Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj

Singh(PW-14), acquitted these six persons holding that the

members of the accused party of the present case were the

aggressors and that the injuries which resulted into death of

Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh were caused by Indal

Singh(PW-12) and his companions in exercise of their right of

private defence. The said finding has not been challenged and has

thus attained finality.

27. The trivial contradictions sought to be highlighted by learned

senior counsel for the appellant regarding absence of empty

cartridges etc. at the place of incident and the plea of alibi is not

tenable because we find that these contradictions are far too trivial

so as to discard the entire prosecution case which is based on

reliable and trustworthy set of eye witnesses whose evidence is

corroborated by the evidence of the Medical Jurist and other

attending circumstances.

28. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity

warranting interference. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and

is dismissed as such.

11

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

April 16, 2024

12