- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhagwan And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
On October 18, 1972, at approximately 2:30 a.m., two police constables—Bhagwan Singh (PW 1) and Maharaja Singh (PW 9)—intercepted a truck loaded with fuel wood in the town of Bagh, suspecting illegal transport. The truck was driven by a person who is not named in the opinion, with Latif (PW 5) as cleaner; the truck belonged to appellant Bhagwan, and appellant Yaqoob was present. When asked for a permit, Latif was sent to fetch the owner. The constables instructed that the truck be taken to the police station. PW 9 boarded the vehicle, which then drove ahead to find space to turn. According to the prosecution, appellants Bhagwan and Yaqoob later stopped the truck, forcibly removed PW 9, and assaulted him—Yaqoob allegedly striking with an iron “tami” and Bhagwan with a stick—leaving PW 9 unconscious while the truck was driven away.
PW 1 subsequently found PW 9 injured on the road, detained appellant Yaqoob, and lodged First Information Report (FIR) Ex. P-1. PW 9 was examined at the Public Health Centre, Bagh. The trial court convicted both appellants of offences under Sections 307/34 and 333/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing each to six and four years' rigorous imprisonment for the respective counts. The High Court affirmed both conviction and sentence. The present judgment addresses the appellants’ further appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the convictions under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC and 333 read with 34 IPC were sustainable in view of alleged inconsistencies, omissions, and delays in the prosecution evidence.
- Whether the defence explanation—that PW 9’s injuries were caused by an accident involving another truck—created reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution's Arguments
- The appellants followed the intercepted truck, dragged PW 9 out, and assaulted him with a “tami” and a stick.
- PW 1’s FIR, PW 5 Latif’s testimony, and PW 9’s account collectively established the appellants’ joint intention to cause grievous injuries.
- Delay in examining PW 5 and PW 9 was attributable to PW 5’s alleged confinement and PW 9’s medical condition.
Defence's Arguments
- PW 9’s injuries resulted from another truck passing in the opposite direction while he was on the footboard, causing him to fall and roll between two vehicles.
- Significant omissions in the FIR—such as the absence of any reference to appellant Yaqoob or to the appellants following the truck—undermined PW 1’s credibility.
- PW 5’s testimony was unreliable because he was examined one and a half months later and allegedly gave evidence under police duress.
- PW 9’s late disclosure of the manner of assault and inconsistency with his police statement cast serious doubt on the prosecution version.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court scrutinised the evidentiary record and identified multiple deficiencies:
- Omissions in the FIR: The FIR did not state that the appellants followed the truck or mention appellant Yaqoob at all; PW 1 offered no explanation for these gaps.
- Delay and possible coercion concerning PW 5: Latif (PW 5) was examined nearly 1½ months after the incident. Although the High Court rejected allegations of police detention, the Supreme Court noted the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay, thereby weakening his credibility.
- Inconsistent testimony of PW 9: PW 9 was also examined on November 25, 1972. In his police statement he made no reference to being attacked with a knife or a “tami,” explanations later offered in court. The Court found his claim that his “mind was not working properly” at the time of the statement unconvincing, especially in light of PW 10 Sub-Inspector Sharma’s testimony that PW 9 gave his statement with “full understanding.”
- Medical Evidence Supporting the Defence: Dr. Sadashiv Sharma (PW 4) testified that PW 9’s injuries could have been caused if a person standing between two passing vehicles were pressed, fell, and rolled—corroborating the defence version of an accidental injury.
The Court held that the trial court and High Court either ignored or inadequately addressed these material inconsistencies and delays. In the Court's assessment, the evidence was too unreliable to uphold a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Convictions and Sentences Set Aside. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants were discharged.
Implications: The decision results in the immediate acquittal of the appellants and termination of all penal consequences against them. The judgment focuses on evidentiary shortcomings and does not purport to establish new legal principles.
A.C Gupta, J.— The two appellants before us were convicted by the trial court of offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to six years' and four years' rigorous imprisonment respectively under the aforesaid two charges. On appeal the High Court affirmed the order of conviction and the sentences passed on the accused-appellants. The prosecution case is that on October 18, 1972 at about 2.30 a.m PW 1 and PW 9 (Bhagwan Singh and Maharaja Singh), police constables on duty, saw a truck loaded with fuel wood passing through the Town Bagh towards Kukshi. PW 5 Latif, cleaner of the truck, and appellant Yaqoob were in the same truck. The truck belonged to the other appellant Bhagwan. Suspecting that the fuel was being illicitly taken away, the two constables stopped the truck and asked for the permit. Latif was then sent to summon appellant Bhagwan who is said to be the owner of the truck. The constables asked the driver of the truck to turn the truck and take it to the police station. As there was no sufficient space for turning the truck, constable Bhagwan Singh (PW 1) asked the driver to take the truck ahead and bring it back and requested constable Maharaja Singh (PW 9) to sit in the truck. After proceeding some distance the truck stopped. Appellants, Bhagwan and Yaqoob, who had been following the truck came up, Yaqoob opened the left side window of the truck and Bhagwan dragged out Maharaja Singh. Yaqoob then hit him with an iron “tami” and Bhagwan belaboured him with a stick. Maharaja Singh fell down unconscious and the truck was driven away. Bhagwan Singh waited for some time for the truck and when it did not return, he proceeded towards the bus stand where on the road he found Maharaja Singh with bleeding injuries on his person. Bhagwan Singh found appellant Yaqoob standing there and took him to the police station and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1). Maharaja Singh was then removed to the Public Health Centre, Bagh, where he was examined by PW 4 Dr Sharma. The defence version is that when constable Bhagwan Singh asked the driver to take the truck to the police station, constable Maharaja Singh was standing on the footboard of the truck and after it proceeded some distance, he was hit by another truck coming from the opposite side, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries.
2. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 9. PW 1 constable Bhagwan Singh lodged the FIR. The story that appellants Bhagwan and Yaqoob followed the truck when it was being taken to the police station does not find a place in the FIR, and PW 1 is not able to explain why. The FIR also does not mention the name of appellant Yaqoob at all. It appears that PW 5, the cleaner of the truck, was examined nearly 11/2 months after the date of the incident. According to this witness he was kept confined by the police for about two days before they took his statement and it was argued before the trial court as also before the High Court that he gave his evidence under duress. The High Court has declined to accept the story that PW 5 had been kept under detention. The fact however remains that Latif was examined on November 25, 1972 and there is no explanation why he could not be examined earlier.
3. Apart from Latif, PW 9 Maharaja Singh was the only witness of the assault on himself. He was also examined on November 25, 1972 but in his case the explanation is that he could not be examined earlier because of his state of health. In his statement to the police PW 9 did not mention what he stated before the court that appellant Yaqoob assaulted him with a knife and appellant Bhagwan assaulted with a “tami”. The reason for the omission according to him was that at that time his mind was not working properly. However, he does not say when his mind started functioning properly and when exactly the memory of the incident came flooding back to him to enable him to narrate the story in such detail before the court. The explanation that the mind was not working properly does not also seem to be correct. PW 10 Sub-Inspector Suraj Prakash Sharma who recorded Maharaja Singh's statement states in his evidence:
“The statement which Maharaja Singh gave was given by him with full understanding. He did not give it in unbalanced condition of mind. His statement Ex. D-3 is written in the same way in which he gave it.”
4. The defence version finds support from the evidence of PW 4 Dr Sadashiv Sharma who says referring to the injuries sustained by PW 9:
“If two vehicles are passing each other and the injured happens to come in between the two, the person would be pressed and will fall down and roll, in that case all the injuries are possible simultaneously.”
5. It thus appears that both trial court and the High Court either ignored the aspects of the case discussed above or sought to explain away some of them, though there was no material to sustain the explanation. We think it unsafe and unreasonable to rest the conviction of the accused on such evidence. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants and the sentences passed on them. The bail bonds furnished by them are discharged.
Alert