Supreme Court of India
DADANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SHO, PS SATNA (M.P.)
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1239
- Decided
- 4 November 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction, holding that under Article 136 it does not re‑appreciate evidence and no error was found in the lower courts' findings.
Summary
The appellant Dadan was convicted along with four others for murder, grievous hurt and rioting under Sections 302, 326 and 148 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the testimony of four close relatives of the deceased. The High Court acquitted one co‑accused but upheld Dadan's conviction, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136, arguing that the benefit of doubt granted to the acquitted co‑accused should extend to him, that the alleged weapon (iron rod) was not seized, and that reliance on relatives' testimony without independent witnesses warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court held that, exercising its discretionary power under Article 136, it does not re‑appreciate or re‑weigh evidence already examined by the trial and appellate courts, and found no error in the Sessions Court’s finding that the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court, exercising power under Article 136, may re‑appreciate evidence and overturn a conviction affirmed by the High Court.
- Whether the benefit of doubt extended to a co‑accused who was acquitted should also be extended to the appellant on the same facts.
- Whether the non‑seizure of the alleged iron rod and the reliance on witnesses who were relatives of the deceased justify overturning the conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 326
Subjects
Article 136Supreme Courtappealconvictionbenefit of doubtunlawful assemblyIPC sections 148 149 302 326evidence appraisalcriminal law
Judgment
(2008] 15 S.C.R 257
. " DADAN A
v.
.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SHO, PS
SATNA (M.P.)
~Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2007)
H
NOVEMBER 4, 2008
l y [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Appeal against
conviction by Courts below - Power under Art.136 of the c
Constitution - Held: In exercise of such power, Supreme
Court does not re-appreciate, review and re-weigh evidence
which has been appreciated by Trial Court and by High Court
- On facts, if Sessions Court was satisfied that the prosecution
witnesses were trustworthy and relying on their testimony, D
> conviction was recorded and High Court confirmed that part
of the order, it cannot be said that by doing so any illegality
. had been committed by the Courts below - No interference,
therefore, was called for by Supreme Court against the said
finding - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 rlw 149, s.326 rlw 149 E
and 148.
According to the prosecution, the five accused
persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly
~ wQapons like gupti, knife, iron rods etc. and in
~
furtherance of the common object to cause the death of F
the· son of PW-7 inflicting injuries on him. When PWS,
brother of the deceased, tried to intervene, he was also
allegedly beaten up by the accused persons and serious
injuries were caused to him. The incident was allegedly
witnessed by PW7; PW9, the mother of the deceased as G
also PW10, another brother of the deceased.
Placing reliance upon the testimony of PWs 5, 7, 9
and 10, the Trial Court convicted all the accused persons
257 IH
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C. R.
A under s.302 r/w s.149, s.326 r/w s.149 and s.148 IPC. On
appeal, the High Court acquitted one accused but
confirmed conviction of the other four accused including
Appellant.
..
"'
In appeal to this Court, Appellant challenged his
B
convictio·n contending that when the High Court
acquitted one accused and granted benefit of doubt to y j .,
· him, the said benefit ought to have been extended to him
also and on the same set of facts and circumstances, the
High Court ought not to have convicted him.
c
It was contended that the i1ron rod allegedly used in
commission of offence was not seized and on that
ground also, Appellant was entitled to acquittal and
further that all the prosecution witnesses were closely
D related to the deceased and . since independent
witnesses, though available, had not been examined, the. -~
High Court ought to have granted benefit of doubt to the
Appellant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. In the present case, no error can be said _
to have been committed either by the Trial Court or by
the High Cou~ in recording guilt of t'1e appellant and in
convicting him for the offences with which he was )..
F charged. [Para 12] [262-G;;H; 263~A]
!,
1.2. This Court is exercising power under Article 136
of the Constitution and is not a regular Court of.Appeal.
In exercise of the said power, this Court does not re-
G appreciate, review and re-weig:h the evidence which has
been.appreciated by the trial Court and by the High Court.
If on the basis of evidence of th,e aforesaid witnesses, the )-;'
Session·s ·.Court was satisfi~d that the prosecution
witnesses were trustworthy ·and relying on their
testimony, conviction was .recorded and the High Court
H
DADAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH 259
SHO, PS SATNA (M.P.)
" confirmed that part of the order, it cannot be said that by
doing so any illegality had been committed by the courts
A
below. No interference, therefore, is called for by this
Court against the said finding. Conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court are maintained. [Paras. 13 and 14] [263-8-E] 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
i '"\" No. 386 of 2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.4.2006 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal c
No. 2444 of 1998.
Anish Kumar Gupta, Deep Shikha Bharati and Rita Gupta
for the Appellant.
D
Siddharth Dave, Jentiben A.O. and Vibha Datta Makhija
> for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by
E
appellant Dadan-Accused No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 39 of
.1992 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated September 11, 1998,
recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Satna
~
(Madhya Pradesh) and confirmed by the High Court of
F
Judicature at Jabalpur, M.P. ori April 25, 2006 in Criminal
Appeal No. 2444 of 1998. ·
2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that according
to the prosecution, the incident in question took place on
December 14, 1990 at 07.05 p.m. at Kabari Tola, District G
Satna in front of Pan shop of one Bablu. The case of the
prosecution was that on the fateful day, all the accused were
standing near the shop of Bablu. Jawaharlal Sahu (deceased)
came there on his scooter. All the accused persons were
waiting for the deceased. They formed an unlawful assembly H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R.
A whose members were armed with deadly weapons like gupti,
knife, iron rods etc. The common obj~ct of the accused persons
was to kill Jawaharlal. On seeing Jawaharlal, all the accused
started inflicting injuries.on him. Jawaharlal cried for help. His
brother PW 5 Motilal who was sitting at the watch shop of
B Ramcharan Singh, immediately re~ched there to rescue him,
but he was aJso beaten by the accused persons and serious
injuries "Vere caused to him. The incident was witnessed by PW
'i 4
7 Hiralal, father of the deceased, PW 9 Janki Bai, mother of
the deceased as also PW 10 Bharat Kumar, brother of the
c deceased. Other persons also came there. The accused fled
away. Jawaharlal died due to injuries sustained by him. Motilal
was taken
.
to hospital. First Information
'
Report was lodged
immediately at. 8.45 p.m. The accused were arrested on the
next day, i.e. December 15, 1990. They were charged for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302
D
read with 149 as also Section 307 read with 149, Indian Penal
...._
Code, 1860 (IPC). Usual investigati6n was carried out and the
case was .committed to the Court of Session by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate since it was exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court.
E
3. The plea of the accused was recorded. They denied
having committed any offence and claimed to be tried.
4. At the trial, the prosecution, in support of the case, .....
~
examined fifteen wi,tnesses .. The' accused in their .defence ;._
F
examined four witnesses. ·
5. The Sessions Court on the basis of medical evidence
came to the conclusion and recorded a finding that.Jawaharlal
Sahu died due to injuries sustaine~ by him and the death was
G ·homicidal in nature~ It also recorded a finding that injuries
caused to Motilal were serious in nature and they have been
caused during the course of incident in which Jawaharlal Sahu ~
lost hisJife.
H 6. Considering the part played by the accused and their
DADAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH 261
SHO, PS SATNA (M.P.) [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
responsibility, the trial Court heavily relied upon the evidence A
of PW 5 Motilal, real brother and injured witness and PW 7,
Hiralal, PW 9 Janki Bai and PW 1O Bharat Kumar. On the basis
of the said evidence, it held that it was proved by the
prosecution beyond suspicion that accused persons formed an·
unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object to B
cause death of Jawaharlal, they inflicted injuries on him. All the
accused were, therefore, liable to be convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, IPC. It,
however, held that it was not proved by the prosecution that the 1
accused persons attempted to cause death of Motilal and were, c
therefore, not liable to conviction under Section 307 read with
Section 149, IPC. But they had committed an offence of
causing grievous hurt to Motilal and, therefore, were liable to
be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326 read
with Section 149, IPC. The Court in the light of the said finding,
0
ordered the accused persons to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under
Section 148; to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence. under
Section 302 read with Section 149 and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years for an offence punishable under 1
Section 326 read with Section 149, IPC. They were also E
ordered to pay fine with default clause.
7. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and
sentence, out of five accused, four accused (other than Kirti
Singh) preferred criminal appeals. The High Court again F 1
appreciated the evidence on record and by the judgment
impugned in the present appeal held that the appeal filed by
accused No. 3-Rajesh Viswakarma @Thapa was required to
be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and his
conviction and sentence was set aside. With regard to other , G
accused, however, the court held that the trial court did not
1
.~
commit any error in recording finding of guilt against them and
there was no substance in those appeals. Order of conviction
and sentence, therefore, was confirmed.
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] .15 S.C.R.
A 8. Appellant Dadan who was accused No. 2 has
chalienged his conviction by filing the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
I
10. The learned counsel for the iappellant contended that
B the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court
'
and confirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be in
accordance with· law and it is liable to be set aside. It was also v :>-
submitted that. when the High Court acquitted one of the
accused riot believing the prosecution story and granted benefit
c of doubt to him, the said benefit oug~t to have been extended
to the appellant also. When a part of the prosecution story was
not believable and was not believed by the High Court, on the
same set of facts and circumstances, it ought not to have
convicted the appellant herein. The counsel al.so argued that
D iron rod said to have been used in commission of offence was
not seized and on that ground also, the appellant is entitled to ....._
'
succeed. It was urged that both the courts mainly relied upon
PWs 5, 7, 9 and 10. All the above prosecution witnesseswere
closely related to the deceased being father, mother and
E brothers. Though the incident took place in a busy locality and
other witnesses were available, independent witnesses had not
been examined and the High Cou~ ought to have granted
benefit of doubt to the appellant.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the ~
F other hand, supported the order p~ssed by the High Court.
According to him, on the basis of evi~ence on record, both the
courts reached a finding against the !appellant and there is ·no
reason to interfere with the impugnea judgment.
'
~
G 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through· the judgments of both ·the. courts and
relevant part of evidence of PW 5 Motilal, PW 7 Hiralal, PW 9 r
Janki Bai and PW ·10 Bharat Kumat, we are of the view that
no error can be said to have been cdmmitted either by the trial
H Court or by the High Court in recording guilt of the appellant
DADAN v. STATE OF. MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH 263
SHO, PS SATNA (M.P.) [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
herein and in convicting him for the offences with which he was A
charged.
13. This Court is exercising power under Article 136 of the
Constitution and is not a regular Court of Appeal. In exercise
of the said power, this Court does not re-appreciate, review
8
and re-weigh the evidence which has been appreciated by the
trial Court and by the High Court~ lf on the basis of evidence of
the aforesaid witnesses, the Sessions Court was satisfied that
the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and relying on their
testimony, conviction was recorded and the High Court
confirmed that part of the order, it cannot be said that by doing C
so any illegality had been committed by the courts below. No
interference, therefore, is called for by this Court against the
said finding. The present appeal, therefore, is liable to be
dismissed.
D
"--1 ;- 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by
appellant-accused No. 2 Dadan deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded by
the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are maintained.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed. E
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 136"Sign in to search