Supreme Court of India
MAL SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 636
- Decided
- 28 April 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The appellant Mal Singh is rightly convicted of murder under section 302 IPC, as the medical evidence corroborates the eyewitness testimony establishing his intention to cause death.
Summary
The case concerns the murder of Jogadia and injuries to his wife Thavlibai and son Thakur Singh in Madhya Pradesh. The trial court convicted Mal Singh, Lal Singh and Juansingh under sections 302, 307 and 323 read with section 34 of the IPC, while acquitting Nanki Bai. On appeal, the High Court altered the convictions, holding Mal Singh guilty of murder under section 302 without invoking section 34, and convicting one co‑accused under section 325. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that common intention under section 34 did not apply and that he should not be held liable when other accused were acquitted. The Supreme Court examined the eyewitness accounts and the post‑mortem report, which showed multiple skull and nasal bone fractures consistent with the stones thrown by the accused. It concluded that the medical evidence corroborated the eye‑witness testimony, establishing Mal Singh's intention to cause death. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under section 302 IPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant can be convicted under section 302 IPC without the application of section 34 (common intention).
- Whether the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, sufficiently proves the appellant's intention to cause death.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 325, s. 34
Subjects
murdersection 302 IPCsection 34 IPCcommon intentioneyewitness testimonymedical evidenceconvictionappeal
Judgment
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 929 /
-./
MAL SINGH A
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 2009)
APRIL 28, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
,(
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Prosecution of four accused
- For causing death and injuries - Trial court on the evidence c
of eyewitnesses convicting three accused u/ss. 302134, 307I
34 and 328134 /PC - One co-accused acquitted - High Court
convicting appellant-accused u/s 302 and convicting one of
the co-accused uls 325 /PC - On appeal, held: High Court
rightly convicted the appellant-accused - Medical evidence D
;
corroborates evidence of injured eye-witness.
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 946 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.06.2008 of the High E
Court of M.P. at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2001:
Indra Sawhney (A.C.) for the Appellant:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
Dr. ARIJl:r PASAYAT, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
~
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the
G
Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore
affirming the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned
- Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi (District Dhar) in Sessions
Trial No. 90/2000. One of the co-accused person Nanki Bai
929 H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 9 S.C.R.
A was acquitted. The accused were convicted for offences
punishable -under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 and Sec.307 read
with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Cnde, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
They were also convicted in terms of Sec.323 read with Sec.34
IPC. The latter two convictions were recorded.as the accused
B persons inflicted injuries to Thavlibai PW.3 and Thakur Singh
PW.2.
4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
5. On 9/12/1999 at 7.40 p.m., FIR (Ex.p/9) was lodged by
C Thakur Singh at 9.35 a.m. While the mother of the complainant
Thakur Singh and his father Jogadia were sitting on their · otla'
outside the house, the accused persons approached towards
the deceased and the 'witnesses stating that their mother
Thavlibai was engaged in witchcraft, started beating the
D deceased Jogadia and his wife Thavlibai. When witnesses tried
to save them, they were also extended the same treatment, with
the result Thavlibai, after sustaining injuries over her head and
mouth, became unconscious and Jogadia succumbed to the
injuries. After so assaulting the deceased and his wife, the
E accused persons fled away. ·
6. As the complainant Thakur Singh was injured, he was
sent for medical examination under Requisition Ex.P/1, and
Thavlibai under Ex.p/2. After examination of their injuries, Dr.
S.L. Mujalda (PW.1) issued injury reports Exs.P/3 and P/4. The
F investigating officer proceeded to the spot and took samples
of blood stained and plain earth as also the blood stains lying
on the ground. Inquest was held and inquest memo Ex.P/16
was prepared. The body was forwarded to the hospital for
autopsy and Dr. S.L. Mujalda (PW.1), after autopsy, issued
G post-mortem report Ex.P/6. According to the testimony of the
said Doctor and his report Ex.P/6, the following external injuries
were found on the body of the deceased.
1. Contusion wound 6 cm. x 3 cm at root of nose.
H
MAL SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 931
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
• I
~
(
Fracture of Nasal bone; A
2. Laceration wound 4 cm x 3 cm on front of head at
left side of the mid line;
3. Laceration wound 8 cm x 3 cm at the top of the
head (skull) fracture of skull bone at the parietal 8
area, fracture simple;
4. Laceration wound 4 cm x 5 cm at right side of the
head at front area;
~
'
Laceration wound 6 cm x 4 cm at occipital area. of
c
5.
head.
The Dr. S.L. Mujalda (PW 1) opined that.death occurred
on account of haemorrhagic shock due to head injury.
D
6. The accused were arrested and the seized articles were
sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After
completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. The
accused persons pleaded innocence. The trial Court hold them
guilty. E
7. Three appellants before the High Court i.e. Mal Singh,
Lal Singh and Juansingh were convicted by the trial Court while
Nanki Bai was acquitted. The trial Court referred to the
evidences of PWs. 2,3,4,5 and 6 who claimed to be eye·
witnesses. The trial Court placed reliance on these witnesses F
and recorded conviction. Before the High Court the main
question raised related to the applicability of Sec.34 IPC. The
trial Court found that Sec.34 had clear application. ·The
impugned judgment of the trial Court was in question before
the High Court. In case of the present appellant the conviction G
under Section 302 read with Sec.34 was altered and the
appellant was convicted in terms of Sec.302. The other two
appellants Lal Singh and Juansingh were acquitted of the
charge under Secs. 323/34 IPC. The accused Juansingh was
convi9ted in terms of Sec.325 in place of Sec.307 read with H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.
--- A Sec.34 IPC. This alteration was done primarily on analysis of
the evidence produced qua the accused and co-accused Lal
Singh and Juansingh.
8_. In support-of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the role was attributed to three accused-persons
8
and not to the appellant alone. When the co-accused were
acquitted the appellant should not have been convicted:
Alternatively it is pleaded that the case is not covered under
Sec.302 IPC.
C 9. The evidence of one of the eye witnesses i.e. PW.3 who
also suffered injuries was to effect that the appell~nt hit the
deceased with stones which hit him on the skull. It was al~o
pointed out in evidence that Mal Singh also threw 10-12 stones
in all at the deceased and Juansingh also hit the deceased With
O stones. The report of the Doctor (PW.2) shows that there was
fracture of skull bone. There was also fracture of the nasal bone.
· There was lacerated wound on the right side of the head at front
area and ·lacerated wound at occipital area of the head.
10. These injuries clearly show that the murder was clearly
E intended. That being so, the conclusion of the High Court does
not warrant interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
11. We record our appreciation to the assistance rendered
by Ms. Indira Sawhney who appeared as· amicus curiae.
F
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search