Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Deepak on 22 November, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL Appeal No. 569 of 2011
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEEPAK & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S)
with
CRIMINAL Appeal No. 570 of 2011
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAR SINGH …RESPONDENT (S)
ORDER
These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2008, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeals 197 and 219 of 1997 by which the High Court has allowed the appeals of the accused-respondents and set aside the order of the trail Court convicting them under Sections 148 and 302/149, IPC.
2. The material facts as emanating from the prosecution case are that on the intervening night of 9 th Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and 10th October, 1992 at around 12.30 am in the midnight, SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.12.07 12:28:22 PKT Reason: while deceased Gurvinder Singh, owner of Beer Bar called 2 Chandragupta hotel, was at his Bar, accused Nar Singh came there and told him that Deepak (accused), owner of another Bar in the vicinity, is calling him. Soon after the deceased Gurvinder Singh reached Deepak’s bar Charanjeet Singh (PW1), Ganesh (PW2), Jagdish (PW3) and Ayub (PW4) who were present at the location, heard cries of Gurvinder Singh and rushed to that place and found that Nar Singh (Accused No.5), holding a knife and Deepak (Accused No. 4), Deepchand (Accused No. 2), Ramesh (Accused No. 1) and Jairam (Accused No. 3), holding swords in their hands, were assaulting the deceased, and upon seeing the eyewitnesses, the accused fled away. The eyewitnesses took the injured Gurvinder Singh to police station from where he was taken to hospital while PW1 —Charanjeet Singh lodged FIR (Ext. P/1). However, Gurvinder Singh succumbed to the injuries. PW7—(Roop Singh) held inquest and completed other formalities. The accused were arrested on 13.10.1992 and at their instance weapons used in the commission of offence were recovered. Charges were framed against them and at their denial to have committed the crime, trial was held and the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 148, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC, they were sentenced for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in 3 default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
3. The accused—respondents took the matter to the High Court in CRLA No. 197 and 219 of 1997 assailing their conviction and sentence. On reappreciation of entire evidence, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused of the charges, holding that the testimonies of witnesses are unreliable, unnatural and replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities. That is how the matter reached this Court by way of appeals by special leave filed by the State.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently contended that the evidences and the material available on record would be sufficient enough to convict the accused but the High Court has committed serious error in law by acquitting the accused-respondents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused, however, supported the view taken by the High Court and submitted that the case of the prosecution is a fabricated one. Hence the High Court has come to a right conclusion which calls for no interference by this Court. 4
6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the entire case is based on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, the eyewitnesses, who are one way or the other, closely related/connected to the deceased inasmuch as PW1 is the brother of the deceased, PW2—a tea vendor, who used to get business from the deceased regularly, PW3—servant of the deceased and PW4—who was in negotiations with PW1 in connection with sale purchase of a motorcycle.
7. Going by the record, we find that right from the stage of registering the complaint, police have conducted shabby investigation and consequently it led the prosecution evidence with full of contradictions and infirmities. The evidence of prosecution does not inspire confidence in the mind of Court about the presence of alleged eyewitnesses at the scene of offence.
8. Though the police out post was very near to the place of incident, yet instead of going there, the ocular witnesses carried the victim to the police station located at a faraway place. The Head Constable who scribed the complaint has not been examined. According to PW7 (Roop Singh), the report has been sent to the Jurisdiction Magistrate under Section 157, Cr.P.C. and a receipt to that effect has also been obtained, but admittedly there was no evidence on record to establish the same. This lacuna, 5 coupled with the absence of any entry in the general case dairy maintained at the police station, leads to the imminent opinion that the FIR was ante dated and there was no compliance of Section 157, Cr.P.C. as envisaged under law.
9. The most important factor that goes against the prosecution is that, though strangely, PW1—Charanjeet Singh who along with PWs 2 and 3 carried the grievously injured victim to the police station in an auto rickshaw while PW4 and their father followed them in a car. According to the prosecution, the accused assaulted the deceased with knives and swords, causing grievous injuries of 16 stab wounds and incised wounds on his body through which blood was oozing out, and the bloodstained clothes of the deceased were seized. It is admitted by PW1 that there were no bloodstains on his own clothes and no seizure of his clothes was done by the police. Whereas PW3 (Jagdish) who also put the injured victim along with PW1 in auto rickshaw, categorically deposed that he got bloodstains on his clothes, yet they were not seized by police. Truly, when four persons travelled in an auto rickshaw adjusting themselves in a limited space under haste condition carrying the victim whose clothes were completely soaked in blood, it is natural and certain to get bloodstains on their clothes also. PW2 6 (Ganesh) also admitted that his clothes too were soaked in blood, but there is nothing on record to show that his clothes were seized by the police. Similarly, the auto rickshaw in which the blood oozing victim was taken to police station, has not been seized nor the driver of auto rickshaw was examined.
10. Even in the depositions of other witnesses also, there appear some misconceptions with the real scenario. The statement of Ayub Khan (PW4) completely differs with that of PW1 (Charanjeet Singh) on the sale purchase of motorcycle. In the same way, the presence of PW2 (Ganesh—tea vendor) at the place of occurrence at that time creates doubt, as he deposed that daily he gets huge business from the deceased and in routine he closes his tea shop by 11.30 pm but on that fateful day, for the first time, he remained there at his shop.
11. In view of several shortfalls in the prosecution story, as discussed in the foregoing, it is not at all advisable to convict the accused. As rightly observed by the High Court the statements of eye-witnesses contradicts with each other and the improbabilities and inconsistencies give rise to believe that an overzealous attempt has been made to implicate the accused. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the view taken by the High Court is obviously 7 in the interest of justice and there is no reason for us to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit.
......................J. (N.V. RAMANA) ......................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 22, 2017.
8
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 569/2011
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DEEPAK & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 570/2011 (II-A)
Date : 22-11-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. For Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Puneet Varshney, Adv. For Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)