Madhya Pradesh High Court
Man Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078
1 CRA-5322-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5322 of 2018
MAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Awasthi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal is filed being aggrieved judgment dated 28.6.2018 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge-Begumganj, District Raisen in Sessions Case No.26/2017 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The prosecution case in short is that on 27.5.2017, a report was lodged by the complainant Hamidan Bee (PW.1) at Police Station Silwani that after taking their dinner etc, the family members including her father-in-law Sedu Khan, her mother-in-law Ulfat Bee and children had laid their beds in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 2 CRA-5322-2018 Courtyard for sleeping. A Chimni was glowing. At about 11:00 PM, she heard a sound of something breaking, as a result of which, she got up and saw Man Singh standing with an Axe in his hand. Man Singh had hit his Axe on the jaw of Ulfat Bee and it started bleeding. When she raised alarm then Man Singh alongwith his Axe ran away. On her raising an alarm, her father- in-law and children got up. The villagers dialed 100 and called the police. Her father-in-law and one Muneer Khan residing in her neighbourhood had taken Ulfat Bee to the Silwani Hospital where Ulfat Bee died during treatment.
The FIR Exhibit P/1 was lodged by Makran Singh (PW.8) and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and on committal of the case, the sessions trial was conducted. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. Firstly, there is no motive attached to the appellant. Though it is mentioned in Paragraph No.53 of the impugned judgment that Man Singh had suspicion over deceased Ulfat Bee of engaging herself in black magic etc as he had personally lost her aunt a year prior to the date of the incident and since he was of the view that Ulfat Bee was the person involved in the black magic, Man Singh had caused her death but there is no suggestion given by learned Additional Sessions Judge to the appellant/accused while putting Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 3 CRA-5322-2018 question under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Secondly, the eye-witness account of Hamidan Bee (PW.1) is a weak piece of testimony. Hamidan Bee (PW.1) has not stated that she too was sleeping outside the open Courtyard. Thirdly, the size of injury does not match with the seized weapon. Learned counsel places reliance on the testimony of Dr.Insaaf (P.W.6) to suggest that since the seized Axe was not presented for query report, therefore, it cannot be said that the injury, which was caused, was caused with the same weapon, which was allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant. The witnesses of seizure memo are hostile and, therefore, the seizure memo being not a reliable piece of evidence, the conviction cannot be recorded.
Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on Paragraph No.43 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Allarakha Habib Memon etc. versus State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No.2828-2829 of 2023) decided on 8.8.2024 to contend that the FSL report alone is not sufficient to hold the conviction of an accused. The ratio of law is that there should be some material corroboration.
Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on Paragraph No.76 of the judgment of Apex Court in Subramanya versus State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887 wherein it is held that "keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law". Relying on Paragraph No.90 of Subramanya versus State of Karnataka (supra), learned counsel submits that the High Court erred in relying upon Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 4 CRA-5322-2018 the strong motive for the appellant/convict to commit the crime as one of the incriminating circumstances and there being no motive proved, therefore, there are no incriminating circumstances and the FSL report alone is not sufficient to record conviction. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the finding of conviction recorded against the appellant vide judgment dated 28.6.2018 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge-Begumganj, District Raisen in Sessions Case No.26/2017.
The fact of the matter is that Subramanya versus State of Karnataka (supra) is a case of circumstantial evidence. In Paragraph No.76 of Subramanya versus State of Karnataka (supra), the principle laid down is with regard to establishment of discoveries in a matter pertaining to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is no dispute about proposition of law that the memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be used only to corroborate recoveries made in pursuance or in advancement of the offence committed by the accused. However, the ratio of law laid down in Subramanya versus State of Karnataka (supra) will not be applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case so also the aspect of motive as discussed by the Apex Court in Paragraph No.90 onwards inasmuch as this is not a case of circumstantial evidence but that of a direct eye-witness account.
As far as the judgment of the Apex Court in Allarakha Habib Memon etc. versus State of Gujarat (supra) is concerned, the ratio of law in that case is that the FSL reports can be used for corroboration to the evidence of the eye-witnesses and in drawing a conclusion regarding culpability of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 5 CRA-5322-2018 appellant for crime. It is held by the Apex Court that if the testimony of the so called eye-witness has already been discarded by holding the same to be doubtful then even presuming that the FSL reports conclude that the blood group found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased then this circumstance in isolation cannot be considered sufficient so as to link the accused with crime.
In this backdrop, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen versus State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724 but in the present case, there is an eye- witness account of Hamidan Bee (PW.1) and that testimony of Hamidan Bee (PW.1) has remained unrebutted, therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable.
Now the issue which arises before we advert to the evidence led by the prosecution is that there are some contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Ahmad Khan (PW.4) has stated that when he had reached the house of Ulfat Bee on being called by the Chowkidar, she was conscious and when he asked Ulfat Bee then she said that take me to the Hospital and Man Singh had hit me with his Axe. The aforesaid testimony of Ahmad Khan (PW.4) is not corroborated by the evidence of Hamidan Bee (PW.1), who was already present at the scene of crime and who is the eye-witness to the incident and even this fact is not corroborated from the testimony of Dr.Insaaf (PW.6) inasmuch as Dr.Insaaf (PW.6) has also stated that the injured was brought in Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 6 CRA-5322-2018 an unconscious condition. Thus, such minor contradiction can be overlooked especially when the evidence of Hamidan Bee (PW.1) has remained unrebutted. The defence has not been able to create any doubt as to her presence at the place of the incident, which happened to be the Courtyard of the house of Hamidan Bee (PW.1).
The conduct and story of Hamidan Bee (PW.1) appears to be very natural. Hamidan Bee (PW.1) has admitted that she was sleeping with her kids in the Courtyard. When she heard the noise then she got up. She had seen Man Singh wielding an Axe and attacking the deceased Ulfat Bee.
The aforesaid fact is also corroborated from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Report Exhibit P/20 in which it is mentioned that the human blood was detected on Exhibits-1, 3, 5A, 5B, 6, 7A, 7B & 7C. They are respectively blood stained earth (Exhibit-1), the blood stained Niwad (Exhibit-3), T-shirt of Man Singh (Exhibit-5A), Pant of Man Singh (Exhibit- 5B), Axe recovered from the possession of Man Singh (Exhibit-6) and the clothes of the deceased (Exhibits-7A, 7B & 7C). As the FSL report corroborates the eye-witness account and, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in Subramanya versus State of Karnataka (supra) will not have much application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The Apex Court in Amar Singh versus State of NCT of Delhi (2020) 19 SCC 165 has held that as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye-witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single eye-witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 7 CRA-5322-2018 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity, but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
In the present case, when the evidence, which has come on record, is tested then it is apparent that the testimony of eye-witness Hamidan Bee (PW.1), who had seen the incident, is creditworthy. There appears to be a ring of truth. Her evidence is cogent and credible. Moreover, the aforesaid evidence is corroborated with the FSL report Exhibit P/20. Hence, there is no iota of doubt that the eye-witness Hamidan Bee (PW.1) had seen the appellant Man Singh as an assailant, who caused death of Ulfat Bee. The FIR was promptly lodged within 4-5 hours of the incident. The incident took place at about 11:00 PM. The deceased breathed her last at 1:40 AM in Silwani Hospital while was being prepared to be referred to a Higher Centre. The FIR came to be lodged at 3:55 AM, which leaves no iota of doubt that the complainant was not left with any time while nursing the injured to hatch a conspiracy against the present appellant. There is no theory of any past enmity so to frame the present appellant with the present offence.
Thus, when the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2018 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge-Begumganj, District Raisen in Sessions Case No.26/2017 is tested then the same cannot be said to be suffering from any vice calling for interference by this Court in this Criminal Appeal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 4/9/2025 7:21:13 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17078 8 CRA-5322-2018 Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
Record be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
4/9/2025 7:21:13 PM