REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1348 OF 2007
KHILAN & ANR. .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. On 16.2.2010 this Court had passed the following order:
“Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that
arising out of the same judgment, the State of
M.P. has also filed another Criminal Appeal
No.1540/2008 against the acquittal of Sangram
Singh and requests that the said appeal may
also be heard along with the present appeal.
Criminal Appeal No.1540/2008 is taken
on board.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the
signed order. The reasoned order will follow.”
2. We now proceed to give the reasons.
1
3. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants against the
judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh in
Criminal Appeal No. 120/98 dated 10.4.2006. The High Court has
been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the
conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC.
4. We may briefly notice the salient facts involved in this appeal.
It was the case of the prosecution that eight accused persons,
namely, Prema, Khilan, Gaindalal, Sangramsingh, Durzan, Kashi
Ram, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari had formed an unlawful assembly.
They armed themselves with deadly weapons and assaulted
Toophan Singh, in furtherance of their common object to kill him, in
which they succeeded. It was stated by the complainant, Prabhulal
(PW2) that on 8.12.1991 when he had gone to the fields to answer a
call of nature, he heard the cries of his Mama, Toophan Singh,
shouting “mar diya-mar diya”. He went running to the spot and saw
that accused Prema, Gainda and Khilan armed with farsas and
Sangram armed with luhangi along with Durzan, Kashi, Gyarsia Lal
and Bihari armed with lathis, were assaulting his Mama, Toophan
Singh. As a result of the assault Mama, Toophan Singh, fell on the
ground. When he tried to intervene the appellant, Prema exhorted
the other accused to kill the complainant also. All the accused tried
to catch him but he ran away and reached his home. After hearing
2
about the assault from the complainant (PW2), Phool Singh (PW7)
and two other persons, Meharban and Rajaram went to the spot.
However, the assailants ran away. On an examination of Toophan
Singh, they found that he had died. He had received deep cut
wounds over his head and blood was oozing out of them. Sushila
Bai who was working in the field is said to be an eye-witness of the
assault. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Prema and
his sons had a dispute over land with the deceased and his family.
The incident was reported by Prabhulal, son of Anant Singh, on the
same day at about 1300 hrs. On the information being received,
Crime No.108/91 was registered at Police Station, Kachnar under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC. Upon conclusion of the
investigation charge sheet was filed and all the eight accused were
sent up for trial. All the accused pleaded not guilty. They all took
up the plea that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial the Addl. Sessions Judge
acquitted Durzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari of all the
charges. Prema, Gainda Lal, Khillan and Sangram Singh were
convicted of murder of Toophan Singh under Section 302/34 and
sentenced to life imprisonment and Rs.500/- each as fine. It was
further directed that in case of default they would undergo a further
sentence of two months R/I.
3
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present
petitioners/appellants along with Sangram Singh challenged the
same in appeal before the High Court.
7. The High Court upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence
upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Prema,
Khillan, Gainda and Sangram Singh. However, the conviction and
sentence of Sangram Singh was set aside and he was duly acquitted.
8. Against the aforesaid judgments, Khillan and Gainda Lal have
filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the prosecution version is inherently
improbable. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from
inherent contradictions. According to learned counsel it is a clear-
cut case of false implication due to old enmity between the two
families. The presence of PW2, Prabhulal, in the field at 10 am is
quite unnatural and doubtful. According to the learned counsel, in
villages people go for their ablutions early in the morning when it is
semi-darkness. Nobody would be seen answering a call of nature
at 10 am. In any event, the statements of this witness are
contradictory. He claims to have taken a utensil with him to wash
4
his face. There was no occasion for him to go to the field for
washing his face as the houses of the parties were located in the
fields and were very nearby. Learned counsel further submitted that
on the basis of the same evidence four persons were acquitted by the
Trial Court and one by the Appeal Court. Therefore, for the same
reasons the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and
acquittal. Making detailed reference to the evidence of the witnesses
for the prosecution, learned counsel submitted that there are
different versions given by the prosecution witnesses. Learned
counsel submitted that Toophan Singh could not have gone to the
fields at 7 o’clock in the morning without wearing any warm clothes.
He could not have been wearing only underpants in the month of
December. Learned counsel further submitted that Toophan Singh
had actually seen Sushila Bai in a compromising position with
Baba. He was, therefore, attacked by Baba of Toarai. According to
the learned Counsel, Toophan Singh actually died when the tractor
in which he was being taken for treatment overturned.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant
Prabhulal (PW2) had categorically stated his Mama, Toophan Singh,
used to take the buffaloes to the fields for grazing every day. On
8.12.1991, he had also gone to the fields at about 7 am. He had
further stated that his Mama used to go to the fields after drinking
5
tea and return in the afternoon for lunch. According to the learned
counsel if the deceased had gone after only drinking tea, he would
not have had half digested food in his stomach. In the post mortem
report, it is quite clearly stated that the stomach of the deceased
contained half digested food. This could only be if the deceased had
eaten about 3 to 4 hours before he died.
11. In order to discuss the entire evidence the Trial Court
formulated three main issues which needed to be decided in the
case.
Issue No.1 is “whether on 8.12.1991 at 10 am Toophan Singh
died and his death is homicide?” The Trial Court notices the
evidence of Dr. Natwar Singh (PW1) who had conducted the post
mortem on the deceased on 9.12.1991. This witness stated that the
following injuries were found on the deceased:-
(i) An incised chopped wound over mid of the scalp on
both the mid parietal region centrally of shape “c”,
of size 5cm x 5 cm x upto brain cut (meningitis and
brain matter) clotted blood present.
(ii) An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep over
right arm lower 1/3rd on lateral aspect obliquely.
6
(iii) An incised wound transversely oblique over mid of
left thigh on lateral aspect of (illegible).
(iv) An incised wound over left thigh middle 1/3rd on
lateral aspect transversely 5 cm x 3 cm x muscle
cut 1 x = below the injury no 3.
(v) An incised wound over mid of left leg on ant. Aspect
of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep.
(vi) A contusion over left scrotum on anterior lateral
aspect 5cm x 3cm.”
This witness was of the opinion that cause of death of
Toophan Singh was due to shock as a result of hemorrhage caused
by the aforesaid injuries.
12. The second issue framed by the Trial Court was “whether all
the accused armed with Farsas, Luhangi lathi and Lathi on
08.12.1991 at 10 AM in furtherance of common object and
knowledge assaulted Tufan Singh in Village Aam Khera Patharia?”
13. Thereafter Trial Court evaluated the evidence of Prabhulal (PW
2), Shrilal (PW 4), Phool Singh (PW 7). Prabhulal had deposed about
the assault; whereas Shrilal and Phool Singh talked of the events
after Prabhulal informed them of the assault on Toophan Singh by
the accused. The Trial Court noticed that there was hardly any
7
credible evidence about the assault by Durzan, Kashi Ram, Bihari
and Gyarsia Lal. Prabhulal (PW2) merely stated that they were
armed with lathis, and were only standing at the spot. They did not
participate in the crime. Therefore, they have been acquitted.
14. The Trial Court rejects the submissions on behalf of the
defence that independent witnesses have deliberately not been
examined. It is concluded that merely because of enmity between
the two groups and the close relationship of the witnesses with the
deceased the evidence of Prabhulal (PW2) Shri Lal (PW4) and Phool
Singh (PW7) cannot be disbelieved. For accepting their evidence the
Trial Court notices that the report was immediate lodged in which
Prabhulal and Phool Singh was shown. Investigation was also
immediately started. The Statements of Shri Lal under Section 161
Cr.P.C. were recorded on the same day. The three witnesses are
consistent on the material facts of the incident. The ocular evidence
is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Natwar Singh (PW1) with
regard to the nature of the injuries, time and cause of death. The
injuries which were found over the dead body were mainly caused by
sharp edged weapon which may be farsas as well as luhangi. The
Trial Court then notices the submission that semi digested food had
been found in the intestine, even though, Prabhulal (PW2) had
stated that usually the deceased was taking tea in the morning.
8
The Trial Court was of the opinion that Prabhulal (PW2) had merely
stated that the deceased usually consumed tea only but there was
no statement to the effect that on that particular day the deceased
had not eaten anything else. The Trial Court thereafter notices the
evidence of Sushila Bai (PW9). It is noticed since she did not
support the prosecution case she had been declared hostile. The
Trial Court disbelieved the witness since 5 incised injuries had been
caused on the body of the deceased which could only have been
caused by a sharp weapon. Sushila Bai had said that Baba had
assaulted the deceased with a lathi. The defence version that Baba
had assaulted Toophan, because Sushila Bai had been found in a
compromising position with the Baba, was disbelieved as no
question was put to her on behalf of the accused when she was
examined as PW 9. The Trial Court also concludes that the injuries
on the deceased were not the result of the tractor turning turtle on
he was being carried. According to Dr. Natwar Singh (PW1), there
were five incised injuries on Toophan Singh. Only injury No.6 could
have been caused by a blunt weapon. The Trial Court also noticed
that the weapons of offence had been recovered at the instance of
the accused. On the basis of the above the Trial Court concluded
that the four accused namely Prema, Khillan, Gainda and Sangram
Singh had inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased.
9
15. The third issue framed by the Trial Court is whether on the
aforesaid date, time and place the accused persons formed unlawful
assembly to kill Toophan Singh with deadly weapons and using the
force and aggressions committed while assaulting Toophan Singh.
In considering this issue the Trial Court has reiterated that the
murder was committed by the accused Prema, Khillan, Gainda and
Sangram Singh. It is also noticed that the participation of Durzan,
Kashi Ram, Gyarsia lal and Bihari is not proved by their mere
presence. These persons had no intention to kill Toophan Singh nor
had they formed unlawful assembly to kill him. From the above, it
is quite evident that it was upon the thorough consideration of the
evidence that the Trial Court has rendered its verdict.
16. In appeal the high court re-appreciated the entire evidence,
even more elaborately. The high court had independently reached its
conclusions. It is noticed that the medical evidence given by Dr.
Natwar Singh clearly shows that the deceased had suffered five
incised injuries. The injuries have resulted in the instantaneous
death of Toophan Singh. The High Court reiterates the reason for
disbelieving the testimony of Sushila Bai. On examination of the
evidence given by Prabhulal it is noticed that PW2 had merely stated
that his Mama goes to the fields in the morning after taking tea. He
usually comes back to take lunch in the afternoon. The witness
10
never stated that on that particular date also the deceased had only
taken tea. No clarification with regard to this was sought from the
doctor by either party. In any event this single factor would not be
sufficient to falsify the evidence led by the prosecution. The High
court also discarded the evidence of Sushila Bai on the ground that
the identity of Baba has not been established There was only one
injury on the deceased which could have been caused by a blunt
weapon. Sushila Bai had insisted that Baba had assaulted the
deceased with the lathi. The High Court also comes to the
conclusion that merely because the witnesses had been closely
related to the deceased and there is enmity between the families is
no reason to discard the evidence which is consistent and is
corroborated. The weapons have been recovered at the instance of
the appellant. It is also concluded that Toophan Singh had died due
to the cumulative effect of all the injuries which were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The aforesaid
conclusion is also buttressed by the circumstance that Toophan
Singh died immediately upon the injuries being inflicted. Therefore
the High court had endorsed the approach of the learned Trial
Court. Upon a close examination of the evidence of PW2 Prabhulal,
the High Court came to a conclusion that the presence and
participation of Sangram Singh in the crime was doubtful. It is
observed that although the evidence of PW2, Prabhulal, and Shri Lal
11
PW4 is consistent with regard to the role played and the weapons
used by Prema, Gainda and Khillan. However it suffers from
material discrepancies/inconsistencies in relation to the role played
and the weapons used by Sangram Singh. It is observed that the
statement of Prabhulal is inconsistent with his statement during
investigation under Section 161 of Cr.PC (Ex.D1). In the report
Ex.P2 as well as in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC he has
stated that Sangram Singh was carrying luhangi. However, in his
statement he had changed his version and stated that he was
carrying and used farsa. This apart during investigation luhangi
was recovered and seized from his possession. Even Shri Lal PW4
has mentioned that Sangram Singh was having luhangi in his hand.
Consequently he had been given been benefit of the doubt and
acquitted.
17. From the above, it becomes quite evident that appreciation of
the evidence by the courts below cannot be said to have resulted in
grave injustice to the accused/appellants. The findings recorded by
the trial court have been reaffirmed by the High Court on an
independent appreciation of the evidence. In the absence of any
infirmity either in the appreciation of the evidence or apparent
miscarriage of justice, it would not be appropriate for this Court to
interfere with the judgments of the courts below. Both the courts
12
have painstakingly examined the entire evidence led by the parties.
Cogent reasons have been given in support of the conclusions
reached by both the courts. In such circumstances this Court
would be rather reluctant to intervene. Even though the powers of
this Court under article 136 of the Constitution are very wide, but
they are exercised only in exceptional cases where substantial and
grave injustice has been done to the aggrieved party.
18. The scope and ambit of the power of this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India to interfere in findings of acquittal or
conviction recorded by the courts below has been a subject matter of
discussion in a number of decisions of this Court. We may notice
here only three of the earlier judgments. In the case of Arunachalam
v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham (1979) 2 SCC 297 this Court has observed
as follows:
“The power is plenary in the sense that there are no
words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But,
the very nature of the power has led the court to set
limits to itself within which to exercise such power. It
is now the well-established practice of this Court to
permit the invocation of the power under Article 136
only in very exceptional circumstances, as when a
question of law of general public importance arises or
a decision shocks the conscience of the court. But,
within the restrictions imposed by itself, this Court
has the undoubted power to interfere even with
findings of fact, making no distinction between
judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High
Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted
`perversely or otherwise improperly.”
13
19. Again in the case of State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (1994) 6
SCC 29 this Court, while considering the scope of Article 136 as to
when this Court may possibly upset the findings of fact, it is
observed as follows:
“5. At the very outset we may mention that in an
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court
does not normally reappraise the evidence by itself and
go into the question of credibility of the witnesses and
the assessment of the evidence by the High Court is
accepted by the Supreme Court as final unless, of
course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is
vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found
contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of
record and misreading of the evidence, or where the
conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse
and unsupportable from the evidence on record.”
20. The aforesaid two judgments along with some other earlier
judgments of this Court were considered by this Court in the case of
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211. In
paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment this Court culled out the
principles emerging from the earlier decisions in the following words:
“(i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals
this Court does not interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.
(ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings
of fact given by the High Court, if the High Court
has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.
(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under
Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances
as and when a question of law of general public
importance arises or a decision shocks the
conscience of the Court.
14
(iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell
short of the test of reliability and acceptability and
as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it.
(v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is
vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found
contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors
of record and misreading of the evidence, or where
the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly
perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on
record.”
21. We have been taken through the evidence in the present case
by the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to conclude
that the appellants have been able to establish any exceptional
circumstances or any miscarriage of justice which would shock the
conscience of this Court. We are unable to conclude that the
opinion expressed by the courts below was either manifestly
perverse or unsupportable from the evidence on record. It is not
possible for this Court to convert itself into a court to review
evidence for a third time. In spite of the strenuous efforts made by
the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered
opinion that the present case neither raises any exceptional issue
nor has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
22. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
15
Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2008 –
1. We have earlier noticed in the judgment rendered in Criminal
Appeal No.1540/08 that the evidence of the prime witness,
Prabhulal (PW2) in relation to Sangram Singh was inconsistent and
contradictory in nature. There was a direct conflict in the evidence
given by Prabhulal and Shri Lal (PW4). There was also
discrepancies in the statement made in Court and the statements
made earlier during investigation as also in the report Ex.P2.
Consequently the High Court has expressed an opinion that the
presence and participation of Sangram Singh in the crime is
doubtful. This being a possible and a plausible view would not call
for any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution of India.
2. In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.1348 of
2007, this appeal is also dismissed.
…………………………..J.
[V.S. Sirpurkar]
……………………………J.
[Surinder Singh Nijjar]
March 09, 2010
New Delhi;
16