- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Malkhan Singh And Others v. State Of U.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants—Malkhan Singh (A1), Vishwanath Singh (A4) and Vishram Singh (A5)—along with several co-accused were tried for the murder of Jawaharlal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 and for related offences. According to the prosecution, on the morning of the incident the deceased and eye-witnesses PW 1 Motilal and PW 3 Rameswar were travelling by tonga towards Atta. Near the Atta bus stand the accused stopped the tonga; A1 exhorted the group and fired at the deceased, after which A3 also fired, and A4 and A5 attacked the fallen victim with knives. PW 1 immediately reported the crime to the police within an hour. The trial court convicted six accused and sentenced the present appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and two years under Section 148 IPC; A1 received an additional one-year sentence under Section 404 IPC. One accused, Hardas, remained absconding. On appeal, the High Court upheld the convictions of the appellants but acquitted A2, A3 and A6. The State did not appeal against those acquittals. The present judgment disposes of the appellants’ further appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the convictions of the appellants could be sustained when the High Court had disbelieved the same eyewitnesses in acquitting co-accused A2, A3 and A6.
- Whether the prosecution’s failure to examine all listed eyewitnesses—particularly the tonga driver—vitiated the trial.
- Whether the medical evidence sufficiently corroborated the ocular testimony implicating the appellants.
- Whether, in light of the above, the appellants could be held liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (or Section 34 IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The acquittal of A2, A3 and A6 on the same evidence destroyed the reliability of the prosecution’s case, making it unsafe to convict the appellants.
- The prosecution’s omission to examine independent eyewitnesses named in the FIR and chargesheet, especially the tonga driver, was fatal and warranted benefit of doubt.
- The medical evidence did not align with the prosecution narrative attributing all injuries to the appellants; hence they should receive the same benefit extended to the acquitted co-accused.
Respondent/State's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook an independent assessment of the evidence, focusing on the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 3 and the medical findings:
- Credibility of Witnesses: PW 3 was found to be an independent, unbiased eyewitness whose testimony corroborated PW 1. Although PW 1 was related to the deceased, his prompt, detailed FIR lodged within one hour of the incident bolstered his credibility.
- Need to Examine All Witnesses: The Court reiterated that the prosecution need not examine every listed witness; what matters is the quality, not the quantity, of evidence. A single credible witness can sustain a conviction.
- Medical Corroboration: Eight gunshot injuries (including exit wounds) and five incised wounds matched the account that A1 fired shots while A4 and A5 inflicted knife injuries after the victim fell. This medical evidence supported the ocular testimony.
- Common Object/Intention: The accused lay in wait, acted conjointly, and inflicted fatal injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Their conduct satisfied the requirements of Section 300 IPC for murder and attracted liability under Section 302 read with Section 149, or alternatively Section 34.
- Impact of Co-accused Acquittals: The Court held that the acquittal of A2, A3 and A6 did not undermine the cogent evidence against the appellants; therefore, the appellants were not entitled to parity of benefit.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The convictions and sentences of the appellants under Section 302/149 IPC (life imprisonment), Section 148 IPC (two years' rigorous imprisonment) and, for A1, Section 404 IPC (one year) are affirmed. Bail bonds are cancelled and the appellants must surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
Implications: The decision maintains the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, reinforces principles on the sufficiency of single or limited eyewitness testimony, and leaves the broader law on common object liability under Section 149 IPC unchanged without setting new precedent.
Order
1. The appellants are A 1, A 4 and A 5, Malkhan Singh, Vishwanath Singh and Vishram Singh. They along with four others were charged with an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and other offences. The trial court convicted six accused. The case was separated as against one Hardas who has been absconding. They were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 149 and 148 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively. In addition A 1 also was convicted for an offence under Section 404 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants. It acquitted Raghunath Singh, Tahar Singh and Gajraj, A 2, A 3 and A 6 respectively. Their acquittal appears to have become final since the State is not able to state whether it filed any appeal. Therefore, we are concerned with the appellants in this case.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that Jawaharlal, the deceased, PW 1 Motilal, PW 3 Rameswar were going together on a tonga to Atta. When they reached near the bus stand at Atta, at about 9.00 a.m the appellants and others stopped the tonga. A 1 exhorted others to attack the deceased. Thereon the deceased, PW 1 and PW 3 jumped out from the tonga and the deceased started running towards the land of Bharat Singh. A 1 shot at him and thereafter A 3 also shot at the deceased. Subsequently A 1 again shot at the deceased. A 4 and A 5 attacked him with knives, PW 1 and PW 3 ran helter-skelter. PW 1 ran towards the police station and submitted a report Ex. Kha 2 to the SHO — PW 6 at about 10.30 a.m Thereafter the SHO investigated the offences and apprehended some of the accused and some of them surrendered in the court. Though in the FIR the presence of a number of witnesses has been mentioned, ultimately PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 were examined as eyewitnesses. The trial court and the High Court disbelieved the evidence of PW 4. The High Court found, as a fact, that PW 3 is an independent witness. He had no axe to grind against the appellants. His evidence corroborated the evidence of PW 1. The High Court believing that the 8 gunshot injuries are only as a result of two shots which were said to have been given by A 1, acquitted A 2. A 3 and A 6 were also acquitted. We need not go into the reasons for their acquittal for the reason that we have no appeal against them before us, though we feel that the acquittal was not justified on the basis of the evidence on record. Shri A.K Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the High Court having disbelieved the evidence of the direct witnesses as against A 2, A 3 and A 6 the substratum of the prosecution case has been knocked off its bottom, it is difficult to rely on the selfsame evidence to base conviction of the appellants. It is also contended that the independent witnesses have been cited in the FIR and in the charge-sheet as well. The omission to examine them is fatal to the prosecution case and the appellants are therefore entitled to the benefit. Counsel laid emphasis on the evidence of the driver of the tonga who is direct and natural witness and the omission to examine him is fatal to the prosecution case. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence as regards the appellants' involvement is concerned and therefore, the same benefit as extended to A 2, A 3 and A 6 should be given to the appellant as well.
3. He has taken us through the evidence on record and we have independently subjected the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 to critical examination. The High Court has carefully analysed the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3. It has given cogent reasons to accept the evidence of PW 3 as an independent witness. Even now also we are not persuaded to differ from the conclusion reached by the High Court that PW 3 is an independent witness. No doubt PW 1 is related to the deceased and had some enmity towards the appellants, but his evidence, though partisan, his presence cannot be disputed for the reason that PWs 1 and 3 and the deceased together travelled in the tonga. He himself had given the report to the police immediately after the occurrence within one hour and had graphically described the occurrence therein. As of fact we found it to be a detailed one. In these circumstances the evidence of PW 3 and PW 1 cannot be disbelieved on any ground. Though PW 1 is inimical towards the appellants, it should be considered with anxious care to find whether it inspires confidence to be acceptable. It is not the law that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution as direct witnesses need be examined. The prosecution must unfold the full narration of the material particulars of its case. It is not the quantity but quality of the evidence that is needed. It is settled law that even the evidence of a single witness, if truthful and found acceptable, would form basis to convict the accused without corroboration which is not a rule but an added assurance. The witness must be reliable to inspire confidence for acceptance of his evidence. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine all the other witnesses unless the prosecution so chooses. We find no force in the contention of the appellants in this behalf. We have also seen the medical evidence. Medical evidence in fact corroborates the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3. There are as many as 8 injuries and injuries Nos. 9-10 are exit injuries. Injuries Nos. 6-8 are the gunshot injuries caused by more than two shots. Merely because A 2 was acquitted, it does not mean that the injuries were not caused by the gunshot by the appellants as well. As regards A 4 and A 5 are concerned, there are as many as 5 incised injuries and it is the prosecution case that they inflicted those injuries after the deceased had fallen down. Medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence of PWs 1 and 3. Having considered the evidence from this perspective, we are of the view that both the courts have correctly appreciated the evidence and we find no reasonable ground to doubt the prosecution case or of PW 1 and PW 3. It is next contended that the medical evidence is not sufficient to base the conviction of the appellants alone for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149. We find absolutely no substance in this contention. The appellants and others were lying in wait; on seeing deceased and PWs 1 and 3 coming in tonga A 1 exhorted others to attack the deceased. A 1 shot at and A 4 and A 5 attacked the fallen deceased with knives and inflicted 5 incised injuries. They shared the common object/intention and they left together. The injuries are very grave injuries which are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore the offence comes within the four corners of Section 300. Their case cannot be brought under any one of the exceptions engrafted under Section 300. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 at any rate read with Section 34 is sustained. The appeal is therefore dismissed, the bail bonds are cancelled and the appellants shall surrender to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
Alert