SATYA RAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

540                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 540               [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A                            SATYA RAJ SINGH
                                 v.
                      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 1314 of 2013)
                            JANUARY 28, 2019
B
      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, 34 – Three accused persons
      including the appellant were prosecuted for committing murder of
      one ‘B’ – Appellant convicted u/s.302/34, IPC while the other two
      accused were acquitted – High Court dismissed the appeal filed by
C
      appellant – Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses proved the
      prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of
      eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 proved that the appellant assaulted
      the deceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti – PW-5, the
      doctor, also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area where
D     the injuries were sustained by the deceased – There is no
      inconsistency or contradiction between the witnesses to disbelieve
      their evidence on any material issue – Their testimony being natural
      and consistent and without any contradiction as against the version
      stated in FIR, deserves to be believed – It is not the function of
      Supreme Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point of
E
      fact which did not prevail with the Courts below – Same argument,
      which was unsuccessfully urged before the High Court, was again
      pressed in service before Supreme Court by the appellant to question
      the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence
      but having appreciated the submissions, no merit is found in any of
F     them – High Court was right in repelling these submissions and
      upholding the appellant’s conviction – Constitution of India –
      Art.136 .
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 It is not the function of this Court to re-assess
G     evidence and an argument on a point of fact which did not prevail
      with the Courts below cannot avail the appellants in this Court.
      [Para 20][545-D]
            1.2 The same argument, which was unsuccessfully urged
      before the High Court, was again pressed in service before this
H
                                      540
     SATYA RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                       541


Court by the appellant to question the legality and correctness of    A
the order of conviction and sentence but having appreciated the
submissions, no merit is found in any of them. The High Court
was right in repelling these submissions and upholding the
appellant’s conviction. [Para 24][546-A-B]
      1.3 The evidence of PW-1-, PW-3, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-4            B
proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. So far as
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned, they actually saw
the incident and stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased
on his neck and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed that
both of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the
assault made by the appellant. PW-4 (in whose house the deceased      C
was brought in injured condition soon after the incident and where
he died) also saw the condition of the deceased and the nature of
injuries sustained by the deceased. [Paras 25, 26 and 27][246-
B-D]
      1.4 PW-6, being the sister of deceased, rushed to the house     D
of PW-4 on being informed of the incident where ‘B’ was lying in
an injured condition. She deposed that on seeing her ‘B’ hugged
her and told that the appellant had assaulted him. After some
time, ‘B’ succumbed to his injuries. The evidence of the witnesses
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that assault on the deceased       E
was made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area. PW-5,
Dr. ‘RS’ also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area where
the injuries were sustained by the deceased in his post-mortem
report. No inconsistency or contradictory version between these
witnesses has been noticed which may persuade one to disbelieve
their evidence on any material issue. Their testimony being           F
natural and consistent and without any contradiction as against
the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to be believed. As
rightly held by the High Court, some minor contradictions here
and there without affecting the substance of their statements could
not be made basis to reject their entire testimony. The incident      G
in question occurred around 7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas
the FIR was lodged by PW-1 on the next day, i.e., 20.09.1999 at
around 9 a.m. The Police Station was around 25 KM away from
the place of occurrence. Since ‘B’ died after few hours of the
incident and by that time it was dark night, it was, therefore, not
                                                                      H
542            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     possible for the complainant to go to the Police Station which was
      around 25 KM away from the place of occurrence immediately in
      the night to lodge the report/FIR. In these circumstances, if PW-
      1 left for lodging report/FIR on the next day morning and lodged
      the report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannot be said that there was
      delay in lodging the report/FIR. There is no good ground to
B
      interfere with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
      two Courts below which rightly held the appellant guilty for
      commission of the offence in question. [Paras 28-31, 33-35][546-
      E-H; 547-A, C-E]
            Lachhman Singh and others v. State AIR 1952 SC 167:
C           [1952] SCR 839 –      referred to
                              Case Law Reference
            [1952] SCR 839             referred to              Para 20
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
D     No. 1314 of 2013.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2009 by the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2464 of 2000.
            Mrs. Laxmi Arvind (SCLSC), Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advs. for the
      Appellant.
E
           Ms. Shashi Juneja, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advs. for the
      Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
F     against the final judgment and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the
      High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2464
      of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
      appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment dated
      30.08.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions
G     Trial No.690/1999 by which the appellant was found guilty of the offence
      punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
      (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life
      imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
      undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

H
     SATYA RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                 543
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, relevant   A
facts need mention in brief infra.
      3. Three accused persons, namely, Satya Raj Singh (appellant
herein), Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal were prosecuted for
committing murder of one person called - Bhaiya alias Narendra under
Section 302/34 IPC.                                                             B
       4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Katna by his judgment/order
dated 30.08.2000 found the appellant–Satya Raj Singh guilty for
commission of murder of Bhaiya alias Narendra and accordingly
convicted him under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
life imprisonment. So far as other two accused namely, Santosh and              C
Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal are concerned, both were acquitted of the
charge.
       5. The appellant – Satya Raj Singh felt aggrieved and filed criminal
appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. So far as the
State is concerned, no appeal was filed against that part of the order of       D
the Additional Sessions Judge by which two other accused, namely,
Santosh and Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal were acquitted. In this way, the
order of acquittal of Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal became
final.
       6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed          E
by Satya Raj Singh, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal
by way of special leave in this Court only by the appellant-Satya Raj
Singh.
     7. The case set up by the prosecution against the accused persons
and which was proved against the appellant is as follows.                       F
      8. The incident occurred on 19.09.1999 around 7 p.m. in village
Imaliya. Four persons namely, Bhaiya alias Narendra - (deceased),
Ravindra Singh (PW-1), Jhallu alias Mahendra (PW-3) and Argent alias
Prabhu Dayal were sitting on the platform (small place in front of house)
of one - Uli Singh. They were chatting with each other.
                                                                                G
      9. At that time, the appellant along with Santosh came there and
expressed his wish to talk to Argent alias Prabhu Dayal. The trio then
went near to the house of one Abhay Raj Singh alias Daddu.
      10. Argent alias Prabhu Dayal then came back and called Bhaiya
alias Narendra (deceased) for two minutes to have some talk. Bhaiya,            H
544            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     however, replied that he has to go to his house to serve cow. Argent
      alias Prabhu Dayal then said to Bhaiya that there is some important
      urgent matter, which he has to talk with him and, therefore, he should
      come with him.
             11. Bhaiya accordingly went to participate in the talk with Argent
B     alias Prabhu Dayal. At that time, Jhallu, who was still sitting on the
      platform, told Ravindra Singh that they had to go to the market to purchase
      some items. Ravindra Singh and Jhallu accordingly left for the market.
      When they were proceeding towards the market and reached near the
      house of Abhay Raj Singh, they saw Satya Raj Singh (appellant herein)
      assaulting Bhaiya alias Narendra with Gupti (a kind of knife) on his
C     neck and its nearby whereas Argent alias Prabhu Dayal and Santosh
      were standing near to him.
            12. On seeing them, Satya Raj Singh (appellant herein) and Santosh
      both ran away from the spot. Jhallu seeing the incident ran towards
      Bhaiya alias Narendra (deceased) whereas Ravindra ran behind Satya
D     Raj Singh. After covering some distance, both Satya Raj Singh and
      Santosh turned back and threatened Jhallu and Ravindra not to chase
      them else they would assault them also.
            13. Out of fear both gave up their chase and returned back. Injured
      Bhaiya was then taken to the house of Abhay Raj Singh because the
E     incident had occurred near to his house.
            14. Thereafter on next day morning, i.e., 20.09.1999, Ravindra
      (PW-1) lodged an FIR at Police Station Badwara, District Katni on the
      basis of which crime case No.108/1999 for commission of offence
      punishable under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. The appellant
F     herein-Satya Raj Singh, Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal were
      apprehended and put to trial for commission of the aforesaid offence.
      Investigation was carried out. Statements of several persons were
      recorded. Seizure of items was also made. Post-mortem report was
      obtained and then charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to
G     the Sessions Court for trial.
            15. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as
      16 witnesses. The statements of accused were also recorded under
      Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “ the
      Cr.P.C.”) proceedings.
H
     SATYA RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                              545
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       16. As mentioned above, the Additional Sessions Judge by his          A
judgment/order dated 30.08.2000 convicted the appellant – Satya Raj
Singh for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34
IPC and awarded him life imprisonment but acquitted Santosh and Argent
alias Prabhu Dayal of the charges.
       17. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High Court   B
of Madhya Pradesh against his conviction and sentence. By impugned
order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction
and sentence awarded to the appellant giving rise to filing of the present
appeal by the accused - Satya Raj Singh in this Court.
       18. The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is
whether both the Courts below (Sessions Court and the High Court)            C
were justified in convicting the appellant for commission of the offence
of murder of deceased - Bhaiya alias Narendra.
       19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
       20. At the outset, we may take note of one legal principle which      D
consistently reiterated by this Court since inception that it is not the
function of this Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point
of fact which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail the
appellants in this Court (see observation of the learned Judge Saiyid Fazl
Ali, J. while speaking for the Bench in Lachhman Singh and others            E
vs. State, AIR 1952 SC 167).
       21. Yet, we perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
also the judgments of the two Courts below with a view to find out as to
whether both the Courts were justified in convicting the appellant for
commission of the offence in question.
                                                                             F
       22. Before the High Court, the appellant (accused Satya Raj Singh)
had assailed the judgment/order of the Additional Sessions Judge on two
grounds.
       23. One was that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in believing
the testimony of those witnesses who were cited by the prosecution as
                                                                             G
eye-witnesses to the incident and second since the FIR was lodged by
the complainant (PW-1) very late, therefore, the entire case of the
prosecution becomes doubtful and weak qua the appellant and lastly, on
appreciation of the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, no case is
made out by the prosecution against the appellant.
                                                                             H
546             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           24. The same argument, which was unsuccessfully urged before
      the High Court, was again pressed in service before this Court by the
      appellant to question the legality and correctness of the order of conviction
      and sentence but having appreciated the submissions, we find no merit
      in any of them. In our view, the High Court was right in repelling these
      submissions and upholding the appellant’s conviction.
B
            25. The evidence of PW-1-Ravindra Singh, Jhallu alias Mahendra
      (PW-3), Ram Shankar (PW-2), Gitabai (PW-6) and Abhay Raj (PW-4)
      proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
            26. So far as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned,
C     they actually saw the incident and stated that the appellant assaulted the
      deceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed that
      both of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the assault
      made by the appellant.
            27. So far as the evidence of PW-4 (Abhay Raj) is concerned, he
D     was the person in whose house the deceased was brought in injured
      condition soon after the incident and where he died. PW-4 also saw the
      condition of the deceased and the nature of injuries sustained by the
      deceased.
              28. So far as the evidence of PW-6 is concerned, she being the
E     sister of deceased rushed to the house of Abhay Raj on being informed
      of the incident where Bhaiya alias Narendra was lying in an injured
      condition. She deposed that on seeing her Bhaiya hugged her and told
      that the appellant had assaulted him. After some time, Bhaiya succumbed
      to his injuries.

F            29. Reading the evidence of the abovementioned witnesses has
      proved beyond reasonable doubt that assault on Bhaiya alias Narendra
      - the deceased was made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area.
      PW-5, Dr. R. Sidha, also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area
      where the injuries were sustained by the deceased in his post-mortem
      report.
G
             30. We have not been able to notice any inconsistent or
      contradictory version between these witnesses, which may persuade us
      to disbelieve their evidence on any material issue. In our view, their
      testimony being natural and consistent and without any contradiction as
      against the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to be believed.
H
     SATYA RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                  547
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      31. As rightly held by the High Court, some minor contradictions           A
here and there without affecting the substance of their statements could
not be made basis to reject their entire testimony. We, therefore, agree
with the reasoning of the High Court.
       32. So far as the next argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant, that since there was delay in filing of FIR, the prosecution          B
case should not be believed, is concerned, it was also rightly repelled by
the High Court.
      33. It is not in dispute that the incident in question occurred around
7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas the FIR was lodged by PW-1 on the
next day, i.e., 20.09.1999 at around 9 a.m. It is also not in dispute that       C
the Police Station was around 25 KM away from the place of occurrence.
      34. In our opinion, since Bhaiya died after few hours of the incident
and by that time it was dark night, it was, therefore, not possible for the
complainant to go to the Police Station which was around 25 KM away
from the place of occurrence immediately in the night to lodge the report/       D
FIR. In these circumstances, if PW-1 left for lodging report/FIR on the
next day morning and lodged the report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannot
be said that there was delay in lodging the report/FIR.
       35. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere with the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below which,           E
in our view, rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of the offence
in question.
      36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be
devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
                                                                                 F
Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H