{"id":232180,"date":"1991-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991"},"modified":"2018-02-02T11:35:44","modified_gmt":"2018-02-02T06:05:44","slug":"mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991","title":{"rendered":"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 49, \t\t 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 425<\/div>\n
Author: S Pandian<\/div>\n
Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/10\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR   49\t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 425\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (1) 406 JT 1991 (4)\t145\n 1991 SCALE  (2)798\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of India, 1950 Article  136--Criminal\t ap-\npeal-Concurrent\t findings  of fact-Interference\t by  Supreme\nCourt---Circumstances indicated.\n    Indian  Penal Code,\t 1860--Sections\t 302\/34---Conviction\nunder  --Appreciation  of  evidence  by\t Supreme  Court\t  in\nappeal-Non-inclusion  of  appellant's  names  in  the  paper\nwherein\t deceased  wrote the name of assailant\tand  inquest\nreport---Inconsistency\tof witness  Evidence on\t appellant's\nparticipation--Held  guilt  of\tthe  appellants-accused\t not\nproved.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    According to the prosecution, when the deceased a  peti-\ntion-writer, was sleeping in a room with his wife (PW.19) on\nthe iII-fated night, he heard someone knocking at the  door.\nThe deceased switched on the light and opened the door.\t The\naccused\t (A.1  and A.2) entered his room.  They\t whipped  up\ntheir knives and gave stab wounds; one on the chest, another\non the hack while bending. They also slapped and listed\t the\ndeceased.\n    It\twas further stated that the second appellant  (A  5)\ncaught hold of the deceased and banged him against the\twall\nrepeatedly.  PW19  tried  to save her husband  but  she\t was\npushed\taside. During the course of the occurrence,  a\tgold\n'PUTRI'\t which\tPW  19\twas wearing,  was  attempted  to  be\nsnatched away from her.\n    The\t eldest\t daughter  of the deceased, PW\t1,  who\t was\nsleeping  in a room on the first floor, on hearing the\tcry,\ngot down and saw the appellants and the other accused  leav-\ning  her  father's room. The appellants while  running\taway\ntook  with  them  a box containing some\t clothes  and  other\narticles  belonging to PW 1 and chained the doors in such  a\nway that the other inmates of the house could not reach\t the\nspot.\n    The\t deceased's son, PW 3, who was sleeping\t in  another\nroom reached the spot. PW 15, a tenant in an adjoining\troom\non hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out  of\nhis room but he could not do\n426\nso  as\tthe house was chained from outside. He came  to\t the\nspot after the door was opened.\n    All\t the witnesses saw bleeding injuries on the body  of\nthe deceased who was unable to speak. PW 3, at the  instance\nof his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of paper on\nwhich the injured deceased wrote 'Gulab Chand' and  thereaf-\nter became unconscious, and he was then taken to the Govern-\nment hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.\n    The\t two appellants (A4 and A5 before the  Trial  Court)\nalong  with  three others were tried u\/s. 302  IPC  or\tu\/s.\n302\/149 and u\/s. 396, for causing the death of the deceased,\naccused\t No.  2 stabbing the deceased with a knife  and\t the\nrest  of the accused assaulting him and for  committing\t the\noffence of dacoity.\n    The\t Trial Court found the third accused not  guilty  of\nany  of the charges and acquitted him but  convicted  others\nu\/s.  302  read with 34 IPC and sentenced each\tof  them  to\nundergo\t imprisonment  for life, and acquitted them  of\t the\noffence u\/s. 396 IPC.\n    The High Court confirmed the conviction. The present two\nappellants  (A4,  A5) filed the present appeal\tagainst\t the\njudgment of the High Court through special leave.\n    The\t other two accused (A1 and A2) preferred a  separate\nspecial leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court.\nAllowing the appeal of the two accused (A4, A5), this Court,\n    HELD:  1. The powers of the Supreme Court under  Article\n136  of the Constitution are wide but in  criminal  appeals,\nthis  Court does not interfere with the concurrent  findings\nof fact, save in exceptional circumstances. [430 H]\n    2. Within the restrictions imposed by itself, this Court\nhas  the undoubted power to interfere even with findings  of\nthe fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquit-\ntal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at  those\nfindings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.\t[431\nC]\nArunachalam v. PSR Sadhananthan, [1979] 2 SCC 297; State of\n427\nMadras\tv.A.  Vaidyanatha  Iyer, [1958]\t SCR  580;  Himachal\nPradesh\t Administration\t v.  Om Prakash,<\/a>  [1972]1  SCC\t249,\nreferred to.\n    3.01  The deceased was a petition writer and so in\tthat\ncapacity  he was very well conversant as to how to  draft  a\ncomplaint. He asked for a pen and paper, and wrote the name,\n'Gulab Chand', evidently thereby saying that Gulab Chand was\nthe  assailant. The deceased had not written any other\tname\nexcept the name of Gulab Chand. Now the explanation given by\nthe  prosecution  is that the  deceased\t became\t unconscious\nafter writing this one name Gulab Chand, thereby saying\t had\nhe  not become unconscious, probably he would  have  written\nthe name of other assailants also. [431 E-F]\n    3.02.  PW 19 the wife of the deceased, was\tsleeping  in\nthe  same  room in which the deceased was sleeping  did\t not\ninform\teither PW 1 or PW 2 the names of the assailants\t but\nshe gave the names only to PW 3, her son. It transpires from\nthe  evidence  of PW 19 that after PW 1 went  to  fetch\t the\nrickshaw,  PW 3 asked his father as to who had assailed\t him\nand  that it was only thereafter the injured deceased  wrote\nthe  name  of Gulab Chand on a piece of\t paper.\t Before\t the\ndeceased  wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of  paper\ngiven by his son, PW 3, no one including PW 19 came  forward\nwith the names of the assailants. [431 F-G]\n    3.03.  The evidence of PW 2 and 19 indicated that  PW  3\nwas  not informed of the names of the assailants before\t his\nfather\t(the deceased) wrote the name of Gulab\tChand.\tTill\nthe  deceased  wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a  piece  of\npaper evidently PW 3 did not know as to who the assailant or\nassailants was\/were. [432 F]\n    3.04. The Courts below have not approached this signifi-\ncant  aspect of this salient feature in the proper  perspec-\ntive. [432 G]\n    3.05. In the inquest report there is a specific averment\nthat the two assailants namely, Gulab Singh (A.2) and  Gulab\nChand  (A.1)  stabbed the deceased with\t knives\t which\tcase\nalone fits in with the earlier statements of PWs 2 and 19 as\nwell as the version of the deceased in Exh. P. 50. If really\nthe  names of the two appellants had been mentioned  by\t the\nwitnesses,  those  names also would have  been\tspecifically\nmentioned in Exh. P. 24, the inquest report. [433 B-C]\n428\n    3.06.  It is in evidence that both the  appellants\twere\npresent at the scene of occurrence when the police constable\ncame,  but  none pointed out to the police  that  these\t two\nappellants  also participated in the crime. The\t prosecution\nhas  not  satisfactorily established the guilt\tof  the\t two\nappellants beyond all reasonable doubt. [433 F, 434 B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 624
\nof 1979.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  27.3.1979  of\t the
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t High Court in Criminal Appeal\tNo.  498  of
\n1977.\n<\/p>\n
    Frank Anthony, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain\t and
\nR.V. Singh for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
U.N. Bachhavat, Uma Nath Singh and J.M. Sood for the Respon-
\ndent.\n<\/p>\n
The following Order of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n
    These two appellants, namely, Mathura Prashad and  Binda
\nPrashad have preferred this appeal questioning the  correct-
\nness  and  legality  of the judgment  rendered\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal\tNo.  498\/77 by the High Court of Madhya\t Pradesh  at
\nJabalpur  Bench. These two appellants (A4 and A5 before\t the
\nTrial  Court) along with three others, namely,\tGulab  Chand
\nand Gulab Singh and Laxman Rao (who were arrayed as  accused
\nNos. 1 to 3) took their trial on the accusation that on\t the
\nnight intervening 5\/6.12.75 at about 12.30 a.m. at Sarkanda,
\nBilaspur within the limits of Bilaspur Police Station, Civil
\nLines intentionally caused the death of the deceased, Keshav
\nSingh by Gulab Singh stabbing the deceased with a knife\t and
\nthe rest of the people assaulting him and that in the course
\nof the same transaction, they also committed the offence  of
\ndacoity.  Under\t the above accusation, they were  tried\t for
\noffences  punishable u\/s 302 IPC in the alternative u\/s\t 302
\nIPC read with 149 IPC and also for offence u\/s 396 IPC.\t The
\nTrial Court found the third accused, namely, Laxman Rao\t not
\nguilty of any of the charges and consequently, acquitted him
\nbut convicted these two appellants and accused Nos. 1 and  2
\nwho are not before us u\/s 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced
\neach of them to undergo imprisonment for life. However,\t the
\nTrial  Court  acquitted\t the appellants and  the  other\t two
\naccused of the offence u\/s 396 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tbeing aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial  Court,
\nthe  convicted accused namely, these two  appellants,  Gulab
\nChand and Gulab Singh filed
\n429<\/span>
\nan  appeal before the High Court which for the reasons\tmen-
\ntioned in its judgment, dismissed the appeal confirming\t the
\nconviction  recorded  by the Trial Court.  Challenging\tthis
\njudgment,  these two appellants filed their SLP No.  1902\/79
\nand the other two convicted accused, namely, Gulab Chand and
\nGulab  Singh  (A1 and A2) filed a separate petition  in\t SLP
\n(Crl.)\tNo. 1435\/79. This Court by an order  dated  29.10.79
\ngranted\t leave so far as SLP filed by these two\t appellants,
\nbut  dismissed\tthe SLP filed by the first  and\t the  second
\naccused\t namely,  Gulab Chand and Gulab\t Singh.\t Hence,\t the
\npresent appeal by these two appellants.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tfacts  of the case which led to the filing  of\tthis
\nappeal are well set out in the judgments of the Trial  Court
\nand the High Court and hence we think that it is not  neces-
\nsary  for  us  to proliferate the same except  to  refer  to
\ncertain\t salient features relevant for the disposal of\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The  deceased Keshav Singh was a petition\t writer.  He
\nwas  living  in his house at Sarkanda in Bilaspur  with\t his
\nwife  Smt. Phatokan Bai (PW 19) and two\t daughters,  namely,
\nAnjani\tBai (PW 1) and Shail Kumari (PW 2) and his son,\t Ram
\nKumar  (PW  3) who was younger to PW 1 and eider  to  PW  2.
\nThere  were some tenants in different parts of\tthat  house.
\nThe accused Gulab Chand occupied a portion of that house  as
\na tenant, but vacated the same about two months before\tthis
\noccurrence due to frequent quarrels between the children and
\nladies of the families belonging to Gulab Chand and that  of
\nthe deceased. It is alleged that the wife of Gulab Chand had
\ncomplained  about some alleged misbehaviour of the  deceased
\nwith  her. According to the prosecution, when  the  deceased
\nwas sleeping in a room with his wife on the iII-fated night,
\nhe heard someone knocking at the door. On this, the deceased
\nswitched  on the light and opened the door.  This  appellant
\nand  the  other accused entered his room.  Gulab  Chand\t and
\nGulab  Singh whipped up their knives and gave  stab  wounds;
\none  on the chest, another on the back while bending.  These
\ntwo  appellants slapped and fisted the deceased. It is\tfur-
\nther stated that the second appellant herein, namely,  Binda
\nSingh caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the
\nwall repeatedly. PW 19 tried to save her husband but she was
\npushed\taside. During the course of the occurrence,  a\tgold
\n‘PUTRI’\t which\tPW  19\twas wearing,  was  attempted  to  be
\nsnatched away from her.\n<\/p>\n
      PW 1 who was sleeping in a room on the first floor, on
\nhearing\t the cry, got down and saw these appellants and\t the
\nother accused leaving her father’s room. It is alleged\tthat
\nthe  appellant while running away took with them a box\tcon-
\ntaining\t some clothes and other articles belonging to PW  1.
\nAccording to the prosecution, the appellants had chained the
\ndoors  in  such a way that the other inmates  of  the  house
\ncould not reach the spot.\n<\/p>\n
430<\/span><\/p>\n
    After  the\tappellants had fled away, PW  1\t opened\t the
\ndoors.\tPW  3 who was sleeping in another room\treached\t the
\nspot.  PW  15 was a tenant in an adjoining room\t and  he  on
\nhearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out of his
\nroom  but he could not do so as the house was  chained\tfrom
\noutside. Therefore, PW 15 shouted for opening the latches of
\nthe door. He came to the spot after the door was opened. One
\nRamji  Dayal who seemed to have played an important role  in
\nthe  prosecution, also reached the spot but he has not\tbeen
\nexamined by the prosecution as a witness. All the  witnesses
\nsaw  bleeding  injuries\t on the body of\t Keshav\t Singh\t(the
\ndeceased  herein)  who\twas unable to speak. PW\t 3,  at\t the
\ninstance of his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of
\npaper on which the injured Keshav Singh wrote ‘Gulab  Chand’
\nand thereafter became unconscious. The injured Keshav  Singh
\nwas then taken to the Government hospital at Bilaspur  where
\nhe  succumbed  to his injuries. The medical officer  sent  a
\nrequisition Ex. P 14 to the police station. PW 19, by  then,
\nlodged the first information report Exh. P 43 at about\t3.00
\na.m.  on 6.12.75 before PW 21. PW 21 held inquest  and\tpre-
\npared the inquest report Exh. P 24. During the course of the
\ninvestigation,\the has seized Ex. P.50, the paper  on  which
\nthe  deceased  had written the name ‘Gulab Chand’  on  being
\nproduced  by PW 3. PW 9, the medical officer  who  conducted
\nautopsy\t on  the dead body of the deceased, found  two\tstab
\nwounds and one incised wound on the person of the  deceased.
\nPW  8, another medical officer examined accused Gulab  Singh
\nand found on his person a small incised wound at the base of
\nthe index finger on the palmer aspect. After completing\t the
\ninvestigation,\tthe  charge sheet was laid against  all\t the
\naccused persons.\n<\/p>\n
    As\taforementioned, the trial court convicted  the\tfour
\naccused\t inclusive of these two appellants which  conviction
\nwas confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by these
\ntwo appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    Of\tthe witnesses examined, PWs 1, 2 and 19 speak  about
\nthe  participation of the appellants in the perpetration  of
\nthis  heinous  crime. No doubt both the\t Courts\t below\thave
\nconcurrently  found that these two appellants and the  other
\ntwo  accused 1 and 2 were responsible for causing the  death
\nof  the\t deceased  and consequently convicted  and  so,\t the
\nquestion  would be whether this Court while  exercising\t its
\njurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
\nwill  be justified in interfering with the concurrent  find-
\nings of fact.\n<\/p>\n
    This  Court in Balam Ram v. State of U.P. 11975]  3\t SCC
\n219 at 227 held, that the powers of the Supreme Court  under
\nArticle\t 1.36 of the Constitution are wide but\tin  criminal
\nappeals,  this Court does not interfere with the  concurrent
\nfindings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. The
\n431<\/span>
\nscope of interference by this Court under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution  of India in a case of concurrent\tfindings  of
\nfact  arose in Arunachalam v. PSR Sadhanathan, [1979] 2\t SCC
\n297  wherein  this Court has held that “Article 136  of\t the
\nConstitution  of  India\t invests the Supreme  Court  with  a
\nplenitude  of  plenary appellate power over all\t Courts\t and
\nTribunals  in India. The power is plenary in the sense\tthat
\nthere are no words under Article 136 itself qualifying\tthat
\npower.\tBut, the very nature of the power has led the  Court
\nto set limits to itself within which to exercise such power.
\nIt  is\tnow the well established practice of this  Court  to
\npermit the invocation of the power under Article 136 only in
\nvery exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of
\ngeneral\t public importance arises or a decision\t shocks\t the
\nconscience  of the Court. But, within the  restrictions\t im-
\nposed  by  itself,  this Court has the\tundoubted  power  to
\ninterfere even with findings of the fact, making no distinc-
\ntion  between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if\t the
\nHigh  Court, in arriving at those findings had\tacted  “per-
\nversely or otherwise improperly”. (See State of Madras\tv.A.
\nVaidyanatha Iyer [1958] SCR 580 and Himachal Pradesh  Admin-
\nistration v. Om Prakash, [1972] 1 SCC 249. We think that  it
\nis  not necessary to swell this judgment by citing  all\t the
\ndecisions relating to this principle of law.
\n    When the facts and circumstances of the case are scruti-
\nnised, in our considered opinion, they do compel this  Court
\nto  interfere on the ground that the findings of the  Courts
\nbelow suffer from the vice of perversity. I1 is the admitted
\ncase  that  the deceased was a petition writer – and  so  in
\nthat capacity he was very well conversant as to how to draft
\na  complaint.  He asked for a pen and paper, and  wrote\t the
\nname,  ‘Gulab  Chand’, evidently thereby saying\t that  Gulab
\nChand  was the assailant. The deceased had not\twritten\t any
\nother name except the name of Gulab Chand. Now the  explana-
\ntion  given by the prosecution is that the  deceased  became
\nunconscious after writing this one name Gulab Chand, thereby
\nsaying had he not become unconscious, probably he would have
\nwritten\t the names of other assailants also. But we have  to
\ntest  this evidence in the background of the evidence  given
\nby  other  witnesses namely PWs ‘1, 2 and 19. PW 19  who  is
\nnone  other than the wife of the deceased, was\tsleeping  in
\nthe same room in which the deceased was sleeping and, there-
\nfore,  she  must be the proper and natural witness  and\t her
\nevidence has to be given credence. PW 19 admittedly did\t not
\ninform\teither PW 1 or PW 2 the names of the assailants\t but
\nshe gave the names only to PW 3, her son. It transpires from
\nthe  evidence  of PW 19 that after PW 1 went  to  fetch\t the
\nrickshaw,  PW 3 asked his father as to who had assailed\t him
\n‘and  that it was only thereafter the injured  Keshav  Singh
\nwrote  the  name  of Gulab Chand on a piece  of\t paper.\t The
\nrelevant portion of the evidence of PW 19 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
432<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Then Ram Kumar asked my husband as to who\t had
\n\t      assaulted\t and he asked for a pen\t and  paper.
\n\t      Ram  Kumar  brought  a paper and\tpen  and  my
\n\t      husband  could write on it the name  of  Gulab
\n\t      Chand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t this connection, evidence of PW 2 may also  be\t re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ferred to which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Then  at this stage, my brother asked him  as
\n\t      to who had assaulted him. My father asked by a
\n\t      sign of hand for a pen and paper, whereupon my
\n\t      brother  brought\tthe pen and paper  and\tgave
\n\t      that  to my father. My father wrote on  it  by
\n\t      his hand; he wrote the name of Gulab Singh and
\n\t      thereafter he became unconscious.’
\n     This  dearly indicates that before the  deceased  wrote
\nthe name of Gulab Chand on the paper given by his son, PW 3,
\nno  one including PW 19 came forward with the names  of\t the
\nassailants  but it is only thereafter, PW 19 gave the  names
\nof  the assailants. Here also, the prosecution is  not\tcon-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sistent because PW 2 says that her father also gave the name
\nof all the assailants to Ram Kumar (PW 3). The relevant part
\nof PW 2’s evidence reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t “Then\tmy  mother and\tfather\tboth
\n\t      mentioned the names of the assailants. At that
\n\t      time  my\tbrother, Ram Kumar was\talso  there.
\n\t      After  Ramji  had enquired,  my  brother\talso
\n\t      enquired\tthem. My father asked for by a\tsign
\n\t      of hand for pen and a copy.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The above extracted pieces of evidence of PWs 2 and  19
\nindicate  that\tPW 3 was not informed of the  names  of\t the
\nassailants before his father (the deceased herein) wrote the
\nname of Gulab Chand. Had PW 3 informed by his mother (PW 19)
\nof the names of the assailants, he might not have asked\t his
\nfather\tas to who the assailants were. In other words,\ttill
\nthe  deceased  wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a  piece  of
\npaper  evidently  PW 3 did not know as to who  assailant  or
\nassailants was\/were.\n<\/p>\n
     It seems that both the Courts below have not approached
\nthis  significant  aspect  of this salient  feature  in\t the
\nproper\tperspective. On the other hand, it has\tconveniently
\nomitted\t this  significant factor from\tconsideration  which
\ngives the death-knell to the prosecution case so far as\t the
\nalleged participation of these two appellants in this brutal
\ncrime.\tIn the inquest report Exh. P 24, it is\tstated\tthat
\nall the relatives of the deceased
\n433<\/span>
\nKeshav Singh were examined and the following conclusion\t was
\narrived at:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “…..   the conclusion was reached  that\t the
\n\t      death of deceased Keshav Singh by Gulab Singh,
\n\t      Gulab Chand etc. was due to knife wounds.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    This ‘etc.’ in the present case has no relevance because
\nthere is a specific averment that the two assailants namely,
\nGulab Singh and Gulab Chand stabbed the deceased with knives
\nwhich case alone fits in with the earlier statements of\t PWs
\n2  and\t19 as well as the version of the  deceased  in\tExh.
\nP.50.  If really the names of these two appellants had\tbeen
\nmentioned by the witnesses, those names also would have been
\nspecifically mentioned in  Exh. P :24. At this juncture, the
\nlearned\t senior\t counsel appearing on behalf  of  the  State
\nreferred  to a decision of this Court reported in  [1975]  4
\nSCC  153 Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra  Pradesh<\/a>  wherein
\nthis Court has held that the question regarding the  details
\nas to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or
\nunder what circumstances, he was assaulted is foreign to the
\nambit  and scope of the proceedings under Section 174.\tThis
\ndecision will not be of any help to the prosecution  because
\nonly  two names are mentioned in the inquest report  as\t as-
\nsailants, leaving the names of these two appellants who\t are
\nnow rightly attempting to take advantage of this conspicuous
\nomission in Exh. P. 24.\n<\/p>\n
    Though PW 19 is said to be the author of Exh. P 43,\t she
\nbefore\tthe Trial Court does not claim to be the  author  of
\nthe entire averments. She states that the police who record-
\ned  the report, asked only her name and her  husband’s\tname
\nand  nothing  further was asked from her and she  did  state
\nanything more than that. PW 19 further had deposed that\t she
\ndid  not give the names of the accused who  assaulted,\tthat
\nshe did not know whether her husband was then dead or alive,
\nthat  at Thana (Police Station) she came to know  about\t the
\ndeath of her husband, that even then she did not mention the
\nnames of the assailants, and that before going to the Thana,
\nshe  did not give the names of any of the assailants to\t any
\nperson.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  in\tevidence that  both  these  appellants\twere
\npresent at the scene of occurrence when the police constable
\ncame,  but  none pointed out to the police  that  these\t two
\nappellants also participated in the crime. Now the  explana-
\ntion offered by the prosecution is that these two appellants
\ntook the constable aside and whispered something and  there-
\nfore,  PW 1 suspecting that the police constable was  taking
\nside with the appellants did not come forward with a  state-
\nment that these two appellants were also the participants in
\nthe crime. This explanation seems to have been offered\tonly
\nbefore\tthe Trial Court. Both the Courts below have  conven-
\niently over-\n<\/p>\n
434<\/span><\/p>\n
looked and ignored all the above glaring infirmities appear-
\ning in the case and as such the concurrent findings recorded
\nby both the Courts are not proper but perverse.
\n    After  meticulously and scrupulously analysing the\tevi-
\ndence,\twe are left with an impression that the\t prosecution
\nhas  not satisfactorily established the guilt of  these\t two
\nappellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we are unable
\nto  agree with the findings of the lower Courts\t that  these
\ntwo appellants also participated in the crime with the other
\ntwo accused.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result, the conviction of these  two  appellants
\nu\/s  302 read with 34 IPC and the sentence  of\timprisonment
\nfor  life imposed therefore are set aside and both  of\tthem
\nare acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is thus allowed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\t al-\nlowed.\n435<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 49, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 425 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: MATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/10\/1991 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-02T06:05:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-02T06:05:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2845,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\",\"name\":\"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-02T06:05:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-02T06:05:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991","datePublished":"1991-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-02T06:05:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991"},"wordCount":2845,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991","name":"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-02T06:05:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathura-prashad-and-anr-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-4-october-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mathura Prashad And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}