MAUKAM SINGH & OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 336 : 2025 INSC 435

                        Maukam Singh & Others
                                   v.
                        State of Madhya Pradesh
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2025)
                                 02 April 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the order passed by the High Court upholding the
       conviction and sentence imposed on the accused u/s.302/34 and
       ss.323 and 324 rw s.34 IPC justified.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323, 324, 34 – Murder – Ocular
       evidence – Animosity between the accused and the victims
       regarding the ownership of the place of worship – Accused
       persons-appellants armed with deadly weapons came to the
       house of the victim-grandfather, questioned them resulting
       in a scuffle which lead to the death of the victim and injuries
       to grandchildren – Appellants convicted u/ss.302/34, 323
       and 324 rw s.34 for homicide and for injuries sustained by
       grandchildren and sentenced accordingly – High Court upheld
       the same – Interference with:
       Held: Not called for – Merely because witnesses are related, they
       cannot be termed to be interested – Ocular witnesses were all
       grandchildren of the deceased which would not result in eschewing
       their testimony – All the ocular witnesses were injured which makes
       their testimony credible and believable – Also nothing suspicious
       to doubt the veracity of the ocular witnesses – Furthermore, the
       facts regarding the fight and the overt acts does not make it an
       offence covered u/s.304 Part II nor fall under any of the Exceptions
       to s.300 resulting in a finding of culpable homicide not amounting
       to murder – Medical evidence that the injury could be caused
       either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an accidental fall,
       does not detract from the finding u/s.302, especially considering
       the ocular testimony – Intention is clear from the deadly nature of


* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         337

          Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh


     the weapons carried by the accused, who were the aggressors,
     who trespassed into the house of the victims and wielded such
     weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims, one
     of whom died – Evidence. [Paras 5, 6, 13, 14]

                               List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860.

                            List of Keywords
     Ocular evidence; Interested witness; Motive of enmity is double
     edged weapon; Relationship between witnesses and deceased;
     Reverse hit by axe; Medical evidence; Deadly nature of weapons;
     Injured witnesses; Ocular testimony; Intention; Aggressors;
     Grievous injuries.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1741 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2018 of the High Court
     of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in CRLA No. 155 of 2000

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Vikrant Singh Bais, Ms. Neema, Yogesh Tiwari.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     D. S. Parmar, A.A.G., Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Yashraj Singh Bundela,
     Surjeet Singh, Chanakya Baruah, Ms. Saloni, Rohan Singla.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

     K. Vinod Chandran, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in a disputed land,
     carried out by one of the injured; the accused, on the instigation of
     the person who was is possession of the land, reached the house
338                                                              [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of the deceased with weapons and questioned them resulting in a
       scuffle ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to the
       three grandchildren; as per the story of the prosecution. Nine accused
       were arrayed in the FIR but only six, against whom charge was laid
       by the Trial Court of which one died during the proceedings. Three,
       the appellants herein were charged with offences under Sections
       302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code1. Two
       were charged under Sections 324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34;
       who were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein
       were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC,
       for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of
       Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted under Sections 323 &
       324 read with Section 34 of IPC, for the injuries sustained by the
       grandchildren of the deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and
       1 year respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial
       Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed.
3.     On appeal before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the
       appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais argued that there was no
       premeditation and no intention to cause death; not even the remotest
       knowledge of an injury being caused which was likely to cause death.
       In fact, the deposition of ocular witnesses indicate that the accused
       carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on the deceased, even
       according to the Doctor who examined him at the first instance
       indicates that there were no incised injuries. It was also stated that
       the injury which resulted in death, could have been caused by an
       accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances it is clear that if at
       all the accused are found guilty of the alleged crime, they can only
       be convicted under Part II of Section 304.
4.     Sh. Yashraj Singh Bundela, learned counsel appearing for the
       respondent-State pointed out that the injured witnesses (eye-
       witnesses), have spoken in tandem and it was the accused who
       trespassed into the house of the victims; including the deceased,
       and attacked them. There was absolutely no provocation on the part
       of the victims and it was with premeditation and intention to cause
       death that the accused came to the house of the deceased, armed
       with deadly weapons. The fact that the deceased died after 25 days


1    For brevity ‘IPC’
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                           339

          Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh


     in a hospital, would not result in a different finding than that of murder,
     since the single blow caused to the head of the deceased led to the
     death. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction
     for the offences, which charges are found to have been proved nor
     is there any reason to alter the sentence imposed.
5.   We have gone through the entire records and depositions of the
     witnesses. At the outset, we have to notice that the ocular witnesses
     were all grandchildren of the deceased; which by itself would not
     result in eschewing their testimony. It is trite that, merely because
     witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to the interested,
     especially in a case where there is ocular testimony. The prosecution
     unequivocally proved that the altercation leading to the scuffle
     occurred in the house of the deceased, wherein the accused had
     come with deadly weapons, clearly with the intention to harm the
     inmates of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed property
     to offer prayers. That the dispute existed with reference to the land
     stands proved by the testimony of PW-4, a neighbour, who had gone
     to the house of the deceased, hearing the commotion. He testified
     in cross examination that there was animosity between the accused
     and the victims regarding the ownership of the place of worship.
6.   The said statement regarding animosity, brought out in cross-
     examination, is noticed by us, fully realising that, motive of enmity
     is a doubled edged weapon. Animosity alleged can even lead to
     an accusation of false allegation on the part of the complainant to
     deliberately implicate the accused. This makes it imminent that we
     examine the testimony of witnesses with a hawk’s eye to understand
     whether it is truthful or the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The
     relationship of the ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no
     consequence, as the possibility of outsiders being available inside
     the house of the injured is very remote. It also has to be kept in
     mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which makes their
     testimony credible and believable
7.   PW 1-3 are the grandchildren who, in consonance with the FIR
     registered, spoke of the accused having come to their house with
     a farsa and luhangi (an axe and a cutting weapon). The allegation
     was that the accused inflicted blows on the deceased, which injury,
     he sustained in the mouth and head. PW-1 also claimed that the
     first appellant inflicted a blow with the reverse side of the axe on
340                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       his brother PW3 which hit him on the head and legs. PW1 was also
       hit on the head and hands. PW11, the Doctor who examined the
       deceased and the injured deposed that there were five injuries on
       the body of PW1: (i) incised wound on the right side of the head, (ii)
       & (iii) abrasion and incised wound on the right side of the nose, (iv)
       swelling on the right forearm and (v) contusion on left knee. This is
       in consonance with PW1’s testimony. Contradiction brought out in
       cross examination is only that there was no statement made that
       Panna Lal and Dashrath Singh, the acquitted accused, had beaten
       PW1 and his grandfather which was not stated in the Section 161
       statement.
8.     PW2 stated that the first accused inflicted a blow with axe on his
       grandfather, the deceased and the third accused inflicted a blow
       with the cutting weapon. As for his own injuries, he claimed that
       one of the accused inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon on his
       shoulder and another hit his leg with a lathi. The medical evidence
       of PW11 with respect to PW2 indicates abrasion of the right shoulder
       and left thumb and abrasion on the left leg; in consonance with
       his deposition. PW2 also stated that the deceased was beaten
       by all the accused and the first accused inflicted a blow with the
       axe and the third accused hit him with the cutting weapon. The
       contradiction brought out clearly indicates that he had not stated
       the blow inflicted to the deceased by the first accused, in his
       Section 161 statement.
9.     PW3 another grandson of the deceased specifically spoke of the
       first accused having inflicted a blow with the reverse side of the
       axe on the head of the deceased and the third accused also having
       inflicted a blow with the cutting weapon. As far as his own injuries,
       he claimed the first accused hit him on the head with an axe and
       the third accused hit him on the head, with a cutting weapon and
       two other accused having inflicted blows with the cutting weapon
       on his leg and on his back. PW11, the Doctor spoke of PW3 having
       sustained three injuries, (i) an incised wound above the right ear, (ii)
       abrasion on front side of right knee and (iii) abrasion on right index
       finger; which corroborates PW3’s testimony.
10. We have to keep in mind that that there was a scuffle which ensued
    after the accused came to the house of the deceased, with deadly
    weapons. That they carried deadly weapons have been spoken of
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          341

          Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh


     by all the three ocular witnesses, further corroborated by PW-4,
     a neighbour, who spoke of the accused being armed with an axe
     and a cutting weapon. The quarrel that ensued and the scuffle
     was also spoken of by PW4. The injury sustained by Than Singh;
     the deceased, as spoken of by the eye-witnesses was further
     corroborated by PW-4 who had accompanied the injured victims
     to the hospital. In cross-examination he specifically stated that
     he heard the sound of weeping of women from the neighbouring
     house and witnessed the scuffle, on reaching there. We find that
     nothing suspicious, to doubt the veracity of the ocular witnesses,
     has come out in their depositions either in the chief-examination
     or cross.
11. The eye-witnesses; PW’s 1 to 3, who suffered injuries in the incident
    spoke of the blow to the head of the deceased. The learned counsel
    for the accused specifically pointed out that there was no cut injury
    on the deceased. In the teeth of the testimony of the accused having
    carried only cutting weapons; the injury sustained by the deceased
    in all probability was caused by a fall. This absolves the accused
    especially considering the testimony of the Doctor that the fatal injury
    could have been caused by a fall.
12. The deceased according to PW11, Doctor, suffered two injuries;
    both, on the head, one fatal and the other simple. The two injuries
    are as follows :
           (i) swelling extended from left side of his head near to
           left ear extending up to middle of the scalp and this
           swelling was also extended up to parietal region of
           the head and blood was oozing from left ear and both
           nostrils of the nose of Than Singh and for determining
           the nature of this injury he advised for x-ray examination
           of Than Singh,
           ii) lacerated wound on the front and at middle part of head.
     In cross examination, the Doctor deposed that the fatal injury can
     be inflicted by a hard and blunt object. It was also deposed that
     the fatal injury could be caused by an accidental fall; which in the
     context of the specific corroborated testimony of a reverse hit by the
     axe is of no consequence. When a scuffle ensues, it cannot be said
     that the witnesses; especially if they were actively involved in the
342                                                            [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       scuffle and were also injured, would speak of the minute details of
       who inflicted the blow, with what weapon and precisely how it was
       inflicted. Suffice it to notice that the ocular witnesses, also injured in
       the same transaction, spoke of a blow on the head of the deceased;
       their grandfather. The mere fact that PW2 and 3 did not speak of a
       reverse hit by an axe in the Section 161 statement cannot lead to
       their testimony of the overt act being disbelieved. The embellishment
       even if ignored, the overt act stands proved.
13. That, the accused came to the house of the deceased with the
    intention of questioning them regarding the visit made to the deity
    installed in the disputed property, has been unequivocally proved
    by the oral testimony of witnesses. That, the accused came to the
    house armed with deadly weapons also stands established which
    clearly points to the premeditation and the intention to cause injuries
    which were likely to cause death. The facts regarding the fight and
    the overt acts, as disclosed from the evidence does not commend
    us to find an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor falls
    under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in a finding of
    culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The medical evidence,
    that the injury could be caused either manually by a hard and blunt
    object or by an accidental fall, does not detract from the finding
    under Section 302, especially considering the ocular testimony;
    (i) of the accused having come with deadly weapons to the house
    of the victims, (ii) the altercation and fight that ensued and (iii) the
    overt acts of the accused, inflicting injuries on various parts of the
    body of the deceased and victims, (iv) totally corroborated by the
    medical evidence regarding injuries on the deceased and each of
    the injured witnesses; PWs 1 to 3. The fatal injury caused on the
    deceased was by a blow to the head; a vital part of the body, with
    the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus is clear, from the
    deadly nature of the weapons carried by the accused, who were
    the aggressors, who trespassed into the house of the victims and
    wielded such weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the
    victims; one of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a
    blow to the head, definitely resulted in the death; though after a few
    days, as deposed by the Doctor.
14. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence
    imposed on the accused. The appeal stands dismissed. The
    appellants, if on bail, shall appear and surrender before the Sessions
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        343

             Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh


     Court, within two weeks of this order; failing which the Sessions Court
     shall take appropriate steps to apprehend them so as to undergo
     the sentence awarded.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain