Satya Raj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Satya Raj Singh …Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.

2464 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High

Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein

and upheld the judgment dated 30.08.2000 passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.01.28 No.690/1999 by which the appellant was found guilty of 15:42:53 IST Reason: 1 the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

“IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and

a fine of Rs.1000/­, in default of payment of fine, to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three

months.

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this

appeal, relevant facts need mention in brief infra.

3. Three accused persons, namely, Satya Raj Singh

(appellant herein), Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu

Dayal were prosecuted for committing murder of one

person called ­ Bhaiya alias Narendra under Section

302/34 IPC.

4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Katna by his

judgment/order dated 30.08.2000 found the appellant–

Satya Raj Singh guilty for commission of murder of

Bhaiya alias Narendra and accordingly convicted him

under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to

2 undergo life imprisonment. So far as other two accused

namely, Santosh and Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal are

concerned, both were acquitted of the charge.

5. The appellant – Satya Raj Singh felt aggrieved

and filed criminal appeal in the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur. So far as the State is concerned,

no appeal was filed against that part of the order of the

Additional Sessions Judge by which two other accused,

namely, Santosh and Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal were

acquitted. In this way, the order of acquittal of Santosh

and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal became final.

6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by Satya Raj Singh, which has given rise to

filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in

this Court only by the appellant­Satya Raj Singh.

7. The case set up by the prosecution against the

accused persons and which was proved against the

appellant is as follows.

3

8. The incident occurred on 19.09.1999 around 7

p.m. in village Imaliya. Four persons namely, Bhaiya

alias Narendra ­ (deceased), Ravindra Singh (PW­1),

Jhallu alias Mahendra (PW­3) and Argent alias Prabhu

Dayal were sitting on the platform (small place in front

of house) of one ­ Uli Singh. They were chatting with

each other.

9. At that time, the appellant along with Santosh

came there and expressed his wish to talk to Argent

alias Prabhu Dayal. The trio then went near to the

house of one Abhay Raj Singh alias Daddu.

10. Argent alias Prabhu Dayal then came back and

called Bhaiya alias Narendra (deceased) for two minutes

to have some talk. Bhaiya, however, replied that he has

to go to his house to serve cow. Argent alias Prabhu

Dayal then said to Bhaiya that there is some important

urgent matter, which he has to talk with him and,

therefore, he should come with him.

4

11. Bhaiya accordingly went to participate in the talk

with Argent alias Prabhu Dayal. At that time, Jhallu,

who was still sitting on the platform, told Ravindra

Singh that they had to go to the market to purchase

some items. Ravindra Singh and Jhallu accordingly left

for the market. When they were proceeding towards the

market and reached near the house of Abhay Raj Singh,

they saw Satya Raj Singh (appellant herein) assaulting

Bhaiya alias Narendra with Gupti (a kind of knife) on

his neck and its nearby whereas Argent alias Prabhu

Dayal and Santosh were standing near to him.

12. On seeing them, Satya Raj Singh (appellant

herein) and Santosh both ran away from the spot.

Jhallu seeing the incident ran towards Bhaiya alias

Narendra (deceased) whereas Ravindra ran behind

Satya Raj Singh. After covering some distance, both

Satya Raj Singh and Santosh turned back and

5 threatened Jhallu and Ravindra not to chase them else

they would assault them also.

13. Out of fear both gave up their chase and returned

back. Injured Bhaiya was then taken to the house of

Abhay Raj Singh because the incident had occurred

near to his house.

14. Thereafter on next day morning, i.e., 20.09.1999,

Ravindra (PW­1) lodged an FIR at Police Station

Badwara, District Katni on the basis of which crime

case No.108/1999 for commission of offence punishable

under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. The appellant

herein­Satya Raj Singh, Santosh and Argent alias

Prabhu Dayal were apprehended and put to trial for

commission of the aforesaid offence. Investigation was

carried out. Statements of several persons were

recorded. Seizure of items was also made. Post­mortem

report was obtained and then charge­sheet was filed.

The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

6

15. The prosecution, in support of its case,

examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statements of

accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “ the Cr.P.C.”)

proceedings.

16. As mentioned above, the Additional Sessions

Judge by his judgment/order dated 30.08.2000

convicted the appellant – Satya Raj Singh for

commission of the offence punishable under Section

302/34 IPC and awarded him life imprisonment but

acquitted Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal of the

charges.

17. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal in

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against his

conviction and sentence. By impugned order, the High

Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction

and sentence awarded to the appellant giving rise to

7 filing of the present appeal by the accused ­ Satya Raj

Singh in this Court.

18. The question, which arises for consideration in

this appeal, is whether both the Courts below (Sessions

Court and the High Court) were justified in convicting

the appellant for commission of the offence of murder of

deceased ­ Bhaiya alias Narendra.

19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in this appeal.

20. At the outset, we may take note of one legal

principle which consistently reiterated by this Court

since inception that it is not the function of this Court

to re­assess evidence and an argument on a point of fact

which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail

the appellants in this Court (see observation of the

learned Judge Saiyid Fazl Ali, J. while speaking for the

8 Bench in Lachhman Singh and others vs. State, AIR

1952 SC 167).

21. Yet, we perused the evidence adduced by the

prosecution and also the judgments of the two Courts

below with a view to find out as to whether both the

Courts were justified in convicting the appellant for

commission of the offence in question.

22. Before the High Court, the appellant (accused

Satya Raj Singh) had assailed the judgment/order of the

Additional Sessions Judge on two grounds.

23. One was that the Additional Sessions Judge erred

in believing the testimony of those witnesses who were

cited by the prosecution as eye­witnesses to the incident

and second since the FIR was lodged by the

complainant (PW­1) very late, therefore, the entire case

of the prosecution becomes doubtful and weak qua the

appellant and lastly, on appreciation of the evidence of

9 the so­called eye­witnesses, no case is made out by the

prosecution against the appellant.

24. The same argument, which was unsuccessfully

urged before the High Court, was again pressed in

service before this Court by the appellant to question

the legality and correctness of the order of conviction

and sentence but having appreciated the submissions,

we find no merit in any of them. In our view, the High

Court was right in repelling these submissions and

upholding the appellant's conviction.

25. The evidence of PW­1­Ravindra Singh, Jhallu

alias Mahendra (PW­3), Ram Shankar (PW­2), Gitabai

(PW­6) and Abhay Raj (PW­4) proved the prosecution

case beyond reasonable doubt.

26. So far as the evidence of PW­1 and PW­3 are

concerned, they actually saw the incident and stated

that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his neck

and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed that both

10 of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the

assault made by the appellant.

27. So far as the evidence of PW­4 (Abhay Raj) is

concerned, he was the person in whose house the

deceased was brought in injured condition soon after

the incident and where he died. PW­4 also saw the

condition of the deceased and the nature of injuries

sustained by the deceased.

28. So far as the evidence of PW­6 is concerned, she

being the sister of deceased rushed to the house of

Abhay Raj on being informed of the incident where

Bhaiya alias Narendra was lying in an injured condition.

She deposed that on seeing her Bhaiya hugged her and

told that the appellant had assaulted him. After some

time, Bhaiya succumbed to his injuries.

29. Reading the evidence of the abovementioned

witnesses has proved beyond reasonable doubt that

assault on Bhaiya alias Narendra ­ the deceased was

11 made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area.

PW­5, Dr. R. Sidha, also confirmed the injuries, its

nature and the area where the injuries were sustained

by the deceased in his post­mortem report.

30. We have not been able to notice any inconsistent

or contradictory version between these witnesses, which

may persuade us to disbelieve their evidence on any

material issue. In our view, their testimony being

natural and consistent and without any contradiction as

against the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to

be believed.

31. As rightly held by the High Court, some minor

contradictions here and there without affecting the

substance of their statements could not be made basis

to reject their entire testimony. We, therefore, agree with

the reasoning of the High Court.

32. So far as the next argument of the learned

counsel for the appellant, that since there was delay in

12 filing of FIR, the prosecution case should not be

believed, is concerned, it was also rightly repelled by the

High Court.

33. It is not in dispute that the incident in question

occurred around 7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas the

FIR was lodged by PW­1 on the next day, i.e.,

20.09.1999 at around 9 a.m. It is also not in dispute

that the Police Station was around 25 KM away from the

place of occurrence.

34. In our opinion, since Bhaiya died after few hours

of the incident and by that time it was dark night, it

was, therefore, not possible for the complainant to go to

the Police Station which was around 25 KM away from

the place of occurrence immediately in the night to lodge

the report/FIR. In these circumstances, if PW­1 left for

lodging report/FIR on the next day morning and lodged

the report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannot be said that

there was delay in lodging the report/FIR.

13

35. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere

with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the

two Courts below which, in our view, rightly held the

appellant guilty for commission of the offence in

question.

36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is

found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly

dismissed.

………………………………..J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

..………………………………J. (INDU MALHOTRA)

New Delhi, January 28, 2019

14