Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramniwas on 7 September, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1912 OF 2013
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAMNIWAS & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
ORDER
This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior on 27 th November, 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents herein and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against them.
2. The facts of this case in a nutshell as unfolded by the Signature Not Verified prosecution case are that on 3 rd November, 1990 the respondent herein Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.11.25 08:20:10 PKT Reason: Ramniwas indulged into a quarrel with the complainant Gangaram (PW 2) 2 on the issue of right of way for their bullock cart into the field. The next day while the complainant was coming on a bicycle, accused Ramniwas armed with a lathi reached him and gave lathi blows to Gangaram causing two injuries on his legs. Immediately, Gangaram’s father Shrikrishna rushed to the spot to intervene, but by that time respondent No. 2 Mahavir Singh, armed with an iron rod, reached there and assaulted on the head of Shrikrishna. Soon, other accused persons also arrived there and caused injuries to Shrikrishna. On the complaint of Gangaram (PW2) police registered the case and sent the injured persons to hospital and Shrikrishna succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly the accused respondent Ramniwas was charged for the offences under Sections 302/34, 326/34, 325 and 323, IPC whereas accused Mahavir was charged for the offences under Sections 302, 324, 325/34, 326/34, IPC. The accused denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.
3. On an elaborate trial, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused—respondents did not have the comprehension to the extent of murdering Shrikrishna as the injuries caused by them were not sufficient to cause death, but found Ramniwas (respondent No. 1) guilty of the offence under Sections 304 (i) /34, 323, 326/34, IPC and accused 3 Mahavir (respondent No.2) was found guilty of the offences under Sections 304(i), 324, 326/34,IPC and sentenced them.
4. Dissatisfied with the learned trial Court’s judgment the accused went in appeal before the High Court. On overall reappreciation of evidence on record, the High Court formed the opinion that some of the persons from the accused group, who participated in the free fight against the complainant group, have also sustained grievous injuries in the fight, for which there was no satisfactory explanation from the prosecution. The High Court opined that the prosecution has failed to prove which party is aggressor in the fight. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeals of the accused and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against them. Feeling aggrieved, the State is in appeal before us.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the material before us that some persons from both accused group as well as complainant group have been injured in the fight. According to Ramniwas (DW1), accused— respondent No. 1, it was Gangaram (complainant) first caused injury to Ajab Singh with farsa and then other members of complainant group 4 caused injuries with lathis and the same statement has been corroborated with the evidence of other accused (respondent No. 2).
6. Further, the evidences of Dr. R.S. Sikarwar (PW9) and Dr. R.D. Bhargava (DW3) support the fact that the injuries to the accused persons were caused by sharp weapon like an axe and blunt and solid weapon like a truncheon. The record also shows that there were two incised injuries and two contusions on the body of accused Ramniwas (respondent No. 1) as proved by Ext. D/14. In the same way, there were one incised wound on the right parietal region and three contusions and two abrasions on the body of accused Mahavir Singh (respondent No. 2) as proved by the injury report Ext. D/12.
7. It appears that prosecution has failed to explain those injuries sustained by the accused in the same incident. In this situation, the factor that weakens prosecution case is that the prosecution witnesses have confined their statements only to the injuries sustained by the complainant group and denied that accused also received injuries in the same incident and thereby suppressed material facts of the incident and the part played by some of them in the incident, thereby casting a doubt on their credibility. 5
8. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the prosecution case lacks credibility as it did not portray the actual things in a proper way. In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the prosecution for the grievous injuries sustained by the accused-respondents and in the light of the claim of accused respondents for the right of private defence, we are fully in agreement with the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondents from the charges leveled against them.
9. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal thus lacks merit and is dismissed.
......................J (N.V. RAMANA) ......................J (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD) NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 7, 2017.
6
ITEM NO.106 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). 1912/2013
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMNIWAS & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 07-09-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Appellant(s) Ms. Prachi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rusia, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Shukla, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv.
Mr. Suneet Padhi, Adv.
Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)