- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Sughar Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
On the night of 20-10-1989, Balkishan (the deceased) and Sarvan Lal (PW-2) were guarding their jowar crop in Village Nehgawan. Around 3–4 a.m., cattle strayed into their field and began grazing the crop. When Balkishan and Sarvan Lal attempted to take the cattle to the village cattle pond, a group of villagers armed with weapons allegedly attacked them, inflicting multiple injuries. Balkishan later died en route to the District Hospital, Shivpuri.
An FIR (Crime No. 57/1989) was registered the same morning at P.S. Rannod for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 406 IPC. After investigation, the accused were charged with, inter alia, murder. The Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in Sessions Case No. 29/1990 convicted all the accused on 14-10-1991 for offences under Sections 302/149, 324/149 and 148 IPC, imposing life imprisonment for the murder charge.
The accused appealed. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) on 03-01-2003 allowed Criminal Appeals Nos. 242 & 253/1991, holding that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence created reasonable doubt, and it acquitted all the accused. The State pursued the present appeals before the Supreme Court, which granted leave on 19-11-2004 and now delivers the impugned judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground of alleged inconsistency between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
- Whether the proven facts constitute the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC.
- Whether, in an appeal by the State against acquittal, the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution when two views are allegedly possible.
Arguments of the Parties
Prosecution (State)
- The trial court correctly relied on consistent eyewitness accounts (PW-2, PW-4, PW-8) corroborated by injury reports, proving participation of each accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- There was no material inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence; Dr. Agrawal’s inability to detect incised wounds after dressing does not negate Dr. Majeji’s earlier findings.
- The High Court mis-appreciated evidence in discarding prosecution testimony; its order of acquittal therefore warrants reversal and restoration of the trial court’s conviction.
Respondent-Accused
- Eyewitness accounts contained contradictions vis-à-vis the medical evidence, justifying the High Court’s grant of benefit of doubt.
- Even if two views are possible, the appellate principle mandates adoption of the view favouring the accused; thus Supreme Court interference under Article 136 is unwarranted.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court meticulously re-examined both ocular and medical testimony. It found the High Court’s principal ground for acquittal—alleged inconsistency between PW-1 Dr. Agrawal’s post-mortem report (seven blunt-force injuries) and PW-5 Dr. Majeji’s preliminary report (two incised wounds)—to be unsustainable. Dr. Agrawal clarified in cross-examination that post-incident dressing could obscure the true nature of the wounds. Hence, medical evidence was not inconsistent with eyewitness accounts.
Credibility of eyewitnesses PW-2 (injured), PW-4 and PW-8 remained intact; they consistently described the sudden attack provoked by the victims’ attempt to impound the cattle. The Court accepted that all accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and inflicted injuries resulting in Balkishan’s death and grievous hurt to Sarvan Lal.
Nevertheless, analysing the spontaneity of the incident, the nature and location of injuries, and absence of prior enmity, the Court held that the case did not satisfy the ingredients of “murder” under Section 300 IPC. Instead, it amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II. Accordingly, the Court modified the conviction while affirming liability under Sections 148 and 326/149 IPC for grievous hurt to PW-2.
Holding and Implications
Partly Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, convicted the respondents under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, and imposed rigorous imprisonment for six years. Convictions under Section 148 IPC and Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC were restored, with the original sentences maintained. The accused were directed to surrender, subject to adjustment for any time already served.
The decision reaffirms that minor perceived discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence, especially where medical explanations exist, do not necessarily undermine credible eyewitness testimony. It also illustrates the Court’s calibrated approach in re-classifying offences from murder to culpable homicide based on the factual matrix, without creating new precedent on legal principles.
C.K Thakker, J.— Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) dated 3-1-2003 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 242 and 253 of 1991. By the said order, the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused and set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri dated 14-10-1991 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1990.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20-10-1989 Balkishan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and PW 2 Sarvan Lal were guarding their Jowar crop and for the said purpose they had stayed during nighttime in their field. Their neighbour farmers, namely, Ram Prasad (PW 8), Ram Singh (PW 9) and Raghu Nath (PW 10) were also guarding over their respective crops and were in the huts constructed in their fields.
3. According to the prosecution, at about 3-4 a.m early in the morning, cattle of Village Nehgawan started grazing the Jowar crop of the deceased. Deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal (PW 2) surrounded the cattle and started taking them to cattle pond. At that time, all the accused persons who were residents of Village Nehgawan appeared on the spot. They were armed with lethal weapons, like farsa, ballam, luhangi, lathi, etc. They attacked Balkishan and Sarvan Lal and caused injuries to them. On the shouts of injured Balkishan and Sarvan Lal, Ram Singh, Raghu Nath, Ram Prasad and Ram Niwas reached there and saved Balkishan and Sarvan Lal. The accused did not allow the cattle to be taken to cattle pond and took away with them. While leaving the place, they threatened deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal of their lives.
4. Immediately after the incident, deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal went to thana and lodged the first information report (FIR) at Police Station Rannod. The incident was narrated by deceased Balkishan and Case No. 57 of 1989 was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Both the injured were then taken to Primary Health Centre, Rannod for medical examination. Dr. Suresh Majeji (PW 5) examined Balkishan. He also examined Sarvan Lal.
5. Since the condition of Balkishan was critical, he was taken to District Hospital, Shivpuri. On the way, however, Balkishan died. Post-mortem of Balkishan was performed by Dr. G.D Agrawal (PW 1) on the next day i.e on 21-10-1989. The usual investigation was carried out, the accused were arrested, weapons were recovered at their instance and charge was framed against the accused. They denied having committed any offence and claimed to be tried.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri believed the evidence of PW 2, Sarvan Lal, PW 4, Ram Niwas, PW 8, Ram Prasad, (eyewitnesses) and PW 1 Dr. G.D Agrawal and convicted all the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 143, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 324 read with Sections 149, 148 IPC for forming unlawful assembly and for causing death of Balkishan and for causing grievous hurt to Sarvan Lal in furtherance of common object. They were accordingly punished for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for which they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. For the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC, they were ordered to undergo imprisonment for two years. Similarly, for an offence under Section 148 IPC, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial court, the respondents herein preferred appeals. As stated above, the High Court, vide its judgment and order dated 3-1-2003, set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and acquitted all the accused mainly on the ground that there was inconsistency between the evidence of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence.
8. The State has challenged the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court. Notice was issued by this Court on 19-3-2004. Leave was granted on 19-11-2004. The matter has now been placed before us for final hearing.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. The learned counsel for the State contended that the High Court was wholly wrong in allowing the appeal filed by the accused and in acquitting them for the offences with which they were charged and convicted by the trial court. It was submitted that the trial court, after properly appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, held that the incident in question was proved, all the accused were members of unlawful assembly, they attacked deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal. Several injuries were caused to deceased Balkishan and injured Sarvan Lal. Participation of the accused persons was proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 2 Sarvan Lal, injured eyewitness and PW 4 Ram Niwas, and PW 8 Ram Prasad (other eyewitnesses). Injuries caused to deceased Balkishan and injured Sarvan Lal were proved by medical examination.
11. The prosecution evidence also went to show that the accused had committed the above offences in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly as deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal were taking cattle of the accused to cattle pond. The accused did not allow the cattle to be taken to cattle pond and attacked deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal with lethal weapons. There was no inconsistency in the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The trial court considered the evidence of eyewitnesses. It also considered the medical evidence and held that the incident and participation of the accused was clearly proved. The High Court disbelieved the prosecution case on incorrect appreciation of evidence and set aside the order of conviction. The impugned order of the High Court, hence, deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal and by restoring the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court. It was submitted that taking into account the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the High Court extended benefit of doubt to the accused and there is no reason to interfere with the said finding.
13. It was also submitted that even if this Court feels that two views are possible, benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the accused and not to the prosecution. In any case, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court may not interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court and the appeals may be dismissed.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be partly allowed.
15. As far as the contradictions in the depositions of eyewitnesses and medical evidence is concerned, in our opinion, the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the medical evidence did not support the version of the eyewitnesses. It is clearly established from the evidence of injured eyewitness, PW 2 Sarvan Lal and PWs 4 and 8, Ram Niwas and Ram Prasad, that the prosecution witnesses were in their fields protecting the crop of Jowar in the early morning of 20-10-1989 and the cattle entered the fields. Deceased Balkishan and injured PW 2 Sarvan Lal wanted to take them to cattle pond. The said act enraged the accused and they attacked Balkishan and Sarvan Lal which resulted in the death of Balkishan and caused serious injuries to PW 2 Sarvan Lal. There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW 2 Sarvan Lal was injured during the same incident. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident as also participation of the accused.
16. Injuries sustained by deceased Balkishan and injured Sarvan Lal, PW 2 have been clearly established. The main reason which weighed with the High Court was that PW 1, Dr. G.D Agrawal had found seven injuries on the body of the deceased and he had opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt substance. PW 1 Dr. G.D Agrawal did not find any incised wound on the head of the deceased. PW 5, Dr. Suresh Majeji who had examined the deceased immediately after the incident and advised him to be taken to District Hospital had stated that there were two incised injuries, one on the middle of the head and the other on the medial aspect of lower 1/3″ of the right leg. According to the High Court, therefore, medical evidence was not consistent with the prosecution evidence and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
17. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in acquitting the accused on the ground that there was inconsistency in the medical evidence and medical evidence is not in accord with ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Dr. Suresh Majeji (PW 5), in his sworn testimony stated that he applied stitches on the wounds of the deceased. Since his condition was serious, he was advised to go to District Hospital but before the deceased reached there, he died.
18. In fact, when a question was put to PW 1 Dr. G.D Agrawal in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused regarding injuries sustained by deceased Balkishan, the latter replied that he did not find incised wound either on the forehead or at the right thigh. He, however, stated: “After dressing, it is difficult to tell about the nature of injuries.” In view of the above explanation, it was clear that the High Court committed an error in ordering acquittal on the ground of inconsistency in medical evidence and version of eyewitnesses. To that extent, therefore, the decision of the High Court deserves to be interfered with.
19. As far as injuries to the deceased Balkishan are concerned, he had the following injuries:
(1) Incised wound 1′ × 1/2″ × 1/4″ on the middle of the head. Margin clean cut well defined.
(2) No injury seen on the left lower limb.
(3) Incised wound d1″ × 1/4″ 4 × 1″ deep on the medial aspect of lower 1/3″ of the right leg. Margin clean cut bleeding present, whole lower left leg below knee joint to the left ankle joint.
(4) Multiple contusions 4″ × 2 and 5″ × 2 were present on the back. Bluish-red colour.
20. It has also come in evidence that the incident took place “all of a sudden”. When the accused saw that deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal were taking cattle to cattle pond, they wanted both of them not to do so and with a view to prevent them from taking cattle to cattle pond, the accused attacked them.
21. Considering the nature of injuries, and totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the case does not fall within the definition of “murder” as defined in Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC, but in a case of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
22. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be partly allowed and are allowed by setting aside the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court. We, therefore, convict the respondent-accused. The conviction of the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC recorded by the trial court for causing the death of deceased Balkishan is modified to an order of conviction punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The accused are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. Conviction under Section 148 IPC as also under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC for causing grievous hurt to PW 2 Sarvan Lal is maintained in view of the fact that the High Court was not right in interfering with the order passed by the trial court. The sentence awarded on the accused in respect of both the offences also calls for no interference.
23. The appeals are partly allowed and the accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and they are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. Since the order of acquittal was recorded by the High Court, the respondent-accused are ordered to surrender to undergo the remaining period of sentence. It is needless to clarify that the period during which the accused had remained in jail will be adjusted.
24. Ordered accordingly.
Alert