Holding

The High Court erred in holding that the prosecution proved its case; the prosecution failed to establish the charge, and the conviction was set aside.

Summary

The appellants, Chetu, Lalu and their father Chintu, were convicted by the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court for murder, wrongful confinement and arson under IPC sections 302, 342 and 436, based on an FIR lodged by the victim's son. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court examined the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, noting that the primary informant and several panch witnesses were declared hostile and that the alleged eye‑witnesses neither saw the incident nor had their statements recorded. Medical evidence showed multiple injuries but none on vital organs and no injuries consistent with the alleged use of an axe or lathi, undermining the prosecution's claim of fatal injuries caused by the accused. The Court also found it implausible that the accused would set fire to their own house, given the close proximity of the houses. Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and acquitted the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt
Whether hostile witness testimony can be relied upon to sustain a conviction
Whether the medical evidence supports the conclusion that the deceased died from injuries inflicted by the accused
Whether the fire in the house can be attributed to the accused
Whether the convictions under Sections 302, 342 and 436 IPC are sustainable

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 342, s. 436

Subjects

murderwrongful confinementhostile witnessacquittalburden of proofIPC sections 302 342 436medical evidenceevidence evaluationarson

Judgment

t
~

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1038 I

"
A CHETU & ANR. .._
~

v.
r'
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 'I-- •
(Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2007)
DECEMBER 18, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 302 and 342 - Wrongful confinement and murder'-- 1,._
.__
c Close relative of accused found dead in his house - Portion '----

of house burnt - FIR against accused, father and sons, that :
during an altercation they, armed with an axe and 'lathies'
assaulted the victim and locked him in the house - Police
recovered his dead body from the house - Conviction by trial · "
D court affirmed by High Court - Jail appeal by accused sons
- HELD: All 'panch' witnesses and informant were declared "
hostile - Contents of FIR not proved-:- Eye witnesses relied
upon by courts did not state to have seen actual incident -
.:
Prosecution version not supported by medical evidence - r
Despite clear discrepancies in evidence of so-called eye-
E
witnesses, High Court committed serious error in holding that 1:~
;.-.

as the defence case could not be established, prosecution .
must be held to have proved its case - Judgment of High
Court set aside - Accused-appellants acquitted.
The appellants and their father were prosecuted for
F
commission of offences punishable u/ss 436, 302 and 342
IPC on the allegations that on an altercation having taken l
place between the informant's father on the one side and
three accused on the other, the latter armed with 'lathis'
and axe assaulted the former and locked him in a room;
G that the portion of the house in which the informant (PW-
3) and his father were living was set on fire by the father
of the-.appellants as a result of which the house was
burnt. PW-3 was said to have lodged the FIR whereupon
the police procured the key from the mother of the
,. <

H 1038

, /.
CHETU & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1039

appellants and recovered the dead body of the father of A
PW-3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the
• "!-I accused u/ss 302 and 342 IPC. The High Court having
dismissed the appeal, the jail appeal of the appellants was
filed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court B
HELD:1.1. PW-3, the informant, in his evidence before
the trial court denied and disputed that he had made any
statement in the first information report, the manner in
-f which the deceased was said to have been assaulted by
c
-
the accused. This witness was declared hostile. The
Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination although
proved signature of PW-3 on the first information report
but the contents therein were not proved. (Para 9 and 1O]
(1042-G-H; 1043-A]
1.2. PW-6 on whose evidence the trial court relied, did D
not see the actual occurrence. Evidence of this witness
' ~
could not have been relied upon because, firstly, he did
not see the occurrence and, secondly, there was no
'"' reason as to why the police did not record his statement.
Enmity between him and the accused was also proved. E
PW-7, like PW-6, was also ill and had been staying in his
house. He has stated to have seen the accused taking
the dead body of the deceased into their house. After
seeing this, he hid himself in his room. Both these
witnesses did not disclose about their being a witness
of the occurrence to any body. [Para 11 and 12] [1043-G- F
. H; 1044-A-C]

' 1.3. As per the medical evidence, a large number of
injuries were found on the person of the deceased, but
. there was no injury on the vital part of the body. No injury
G
was found which could have been caused by any hard
and blunt substance. A pointed wound was found which
could not have been caused either by lathi or axe which

- ~ are said to have been used for the commission of crime.
Most of the wounds were bluish. All panch witnesses
were declared hostile. [Para 13] [1044-E-F] H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
·""'

A 1.4. The accused and the deceased being closely
related had a common boundary between their houses
which are situated side by side. It is wholly unlikely that 't- )'".

they would put fire to their own house. [Para 14] (1044-
G-H; 1045-A]
B 1.5. The approach of the trial court as also the High
Court ca,nnot be appreciated . Despite the clear
discrepanc·ies in the evidence of so-called eye-witnesses,
the High Court committed a serious error in holding that
as the defence could not prove its case, the prosecution -Y (:"
c must be held to have proved its case. The judgment of
the High Court, therefore, is set aside and the appellants
are directed to be set at liberty. [Para 15] [1045-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.132 of 2007.
D From the Judgment and final Order dated 23.3.2006 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl. Appeal
No. 504 of 1997. ~
-'

Chanchal Kumar Ganguli for the Appellants. ,..
Aishwarya Bhati, C.D. Singh, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey,
E Aditya Singh and Upasana Nath for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~·
S.B. SINHA, J. 1.This Jail Appeal by appellants Chetu and
Lalu, sons of Chintu, is directed against a judgment and order
dated 23.3.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya
F
Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder an appeal
preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence ! "
dated 19.9.1997 passed by the First Additional Sessions
Judge, Ashok Nagar, District Guna convicting them as also their
father Chintu under Section 302 and 342 of the Indian Penal
G Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, was! affirmed.
,->.
2. The deceased Godha was father of Prakash (PW3). f ~
The accused Chintu was his uncle. ~

'
The prosecution case in brief is that when the complainant
H
CHETU & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1041
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
......
Prakash came back to his house from Ashok Na.gar, an A
_ altercation took place between Godha (the deceased) on the
1.~...,..
one hand and Chintu, Chetu and Latu on the other. Chintu was
armed with an axe and the appellants herein were armed with
lathis. They began to assault Godha. They put him in a room
and locked him from outside. The portion of the house in which B
Prakash and his father were living was set on fire by Chintu as
a result whereof the house was burnt. On enquiry from Jot Singh
(PW11) and Navela (PW7), Alto (PW8) wife of Chintu disclosed
that he had been put inside the room.
-f

..
3. The First Information was lodged by Prakash on c
29.9.1991 before the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ashok Nagar
Police Station. On the basis of the said purported information,
the said Shri Mahesh Singh Shukla (PW12) procured the key
from the wife of Chintu and- recovered the dead body. On
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The
case was committed to the Court of Sessions. D

Whereas the charges framed against accused No.1 were
.; under Sections 436/302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the
charges framed against accused Nos.2 and 3 were under
"""' Sections436/34/302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
E
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12
1 witnesses. All material witnesses including the first informant
- Prakash turned hostile. His sister Lakshmibai was examined
as a defence witness.
5. The learned Sessions Judge principally relying on the F
evidence of Lalliram (PW5) and Natha (PW6), and the other
materials brought on record by the prosecution including the

' evidence of Dr. Natwar Singh (PW9) and the Investigating
Officer (PW12) recorded a judgment of conviction and
sentence.
G
6. An appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed
by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment, inter
alia, opining :
-1, "From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased
-..
sustained several injuries with deadly weapon. Due to H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
11";

A these injuries, some of them were fatal, he died in the night
before any medical aid. It also appears that the body was
recovered from the room of appellants and its kE:lY was in
the possession of Alphobai, wife of appellant Chintu. ~~ ..
According to postmortem report, 19 injuries were found on
B the deceased."
7. As regards the witnesses who were declared hostile
including PW3 and the panch witnesses being Hartoom Singh
(PW1), Rumal Singh (PW2) and Bribhan Singh (PW4) as also
, Alfobai (PW8), Prakash (PW3) and Jot Singh (PW11 ), it was
held: ~·-
c
"Regarding hostile witness it is settled law that in case of
hostile witness the whole testimony cannot be discarded .,.-
and we can gather truth out of false. Deceased and
appellants were closely related with complainant Prakash
D and his sister Laxmibai (DW1) who was residing with
appellant Chintu. Therefore, due to natural love and •
affection they did not come with open mouth. Considering
the ocular evidence available in the case and supported
by medical evidence and looking to the circu.mstances of
'
the ~ase, we have no doubt in our mind that on the date
r
E of incident appellants inflicted injuries to the d_eceased by
deadly weapons and injuries were fatal which caused the t_
death of Godha (deceased)."
8. The High Court held that it was a clear case of murder ..
which came within the purview of the clause 'thirdly' qf Section
F 300 of the Indian Penal Code as the prosecution has proved
that accused caused injury to the deceased which was sufficient
to case death in the ordinary course of nature. The d~ceased } .....
was also wrongfully confined by them.
9. PW3, Prakash, "the First Informant, in his evidence
G stated that the deceased reached the village in a drunken state.
He was in an injured condition. According to him, as some
hooligans were following him, it was he who had locked him in
the room thinking that they Vi.'.Ould not be able to find him out.
The hooligans, however, came to his house and put it on fire. ·r •
H He was declared ~ostile.
CHETU & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1043

.... [S.B. SINHA, J.]

10. The learned Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination A
although proved his signature on the .First Information but the
contents therein were not proved. He denied and disputed that

--"' ~ he had made any statement to the effect that after his father
came, he had asked Dadji Chintu to transfer his portion of land
in his name. He also denied to have made the statement in the B
First Information Report, the manner in-which the deceased was
said to have been assaulted by the accused. The prosecution,
as noticed hereinbefore, inter alia, relied upon the evidence of
one Natha who in his cross-examination stated as under:
-f "I know all the accused who are present in the court. Four c
years ago, there was a fighting between Godha and Chetu,
Chintu and Lallu in front of my door. It was about 9 p.m.
,' Chetu and Lallu pulled away Godha in their house. After
that screams of Chintu, Chetu and Lallu, who are heard. I
yvras ill at that time. In the morning villagers inform that
IGodha was dead."
D
11. He, therefore, did not see the actual occurrence. In his
,,.. cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember as to
,,, whether the night was dark or bright. According to him he had
only heard the screams from his house. He did not hear any
conversation between the deceased and accused persons. He E
did not interrupt them. He did not tell them anything. Nobody
also told him anything about the incident. Acording to him, the
Investigating Officer did not record his statement. He did not
see any person in the village. He did not go to the police and
the police had not recorded any statement till the date of his F
examination before the Court. He denied to have made any
statement before the police. He accepted that accused persons
~
had encroached his lands although the accused promised to
give back his land, they did not fulfill the promise. Evidence of
. this witness, therefore, could not have been relied upon for more G
than one reason. Firstly, because he did not see the occurrence;
secondly because there was no reason as to why tl'la police
did not record his statement. Enmity between him and the
appellant was also proved.
--' "'"'· 12. Navela (P":fl), in his deposition, stated that at about H
-
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 9 pm, he hea;d a noise of quarrel through 'Kharanja'. Having
heard the sound of lathis, he came out and saw that Chintu,
Chetu and Lallu were taking the dead body of Godha into their
~;!>~
~ouse. After seeing this, he hid himself in his room (paur).
A~cused persons put the dead body of Godha in the house and

B started abusing the neighbours. He saw fire at Godha's house.
He did not know where the accused persons had gone. In his
cross examination, he stated that he has no enmity with the
accused persons for the last eight to ten years and that there·
is no groupism in their village.
PW7, in his statement, categorically stated that he had not
c disclosed \-
about his being a witness to the occurrence to
anybody. According to him, he was asked by the Police Officer r

to give statement 'as per record' in his own words. He was "
asked by them to which they answered in the affirmative. He,
like PW6, was also ill and had been staying in his house.
D
13. Dr. Natwar Singh found a large number of injuries on
the person of the deceased - four injuries were found on left
leg, three on the left hand, three on the right leg and eight on
the right forehand. There was no injury on the vital part of the
body. No injury was found which could have been caused by
,, ";

E any hard and blunt substance. A pointed wound was found
which could have been caused either by lathi or axe which are
said to be used for the commission of crime. Most of the
wounds were bluish. Autopsy of the dead body took place on
30.9.1991.
F "
We have noticed hereinbefore that all panch witnesses
were declared hostile. The veracity of the entire prosecution
case should have been considered by the learned Trial Judge ;
as also the High Court, keeping in view the aforesaid backdrop
of events.
G 14. Another aspect of the matter must be borne in mind.
The accused and the deceased being closely related had a
common boundary between their houses which are situated
side by side. It is wholly unlikely that they would put fire to their f-
own house. ~

H
---

.
CHETU & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1045
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

15. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge as also A
the High Court cannot be appreciated. Despite the clear
discrepancies in the evidence of so called eye-witnesses which
we have noticed hereinbefore, the High Court, in our opinion,
committed a serious error in holding that as the defence could
not prove its case, the prosecution must be held to have proved B
its case. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly.
16. The appeal is allowed. Appellants are directed to be
set at .liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case.
RP. Appeal allowed. C .