Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P.versusDHARA SINGH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 302
- Decided
- 3 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court erred in acquitting as the witness’s name was recorded in the FIR and the lack of a ballistic report does not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case.
Summary
On 3 October 1998, Ohara Singh and Prem Das attacked a bullock cart, resulting in the death of Sohan Lal. The FIR, lodged by Ramhet (PW‑2), named Bhagwan Singh (PW‑3) as an eye‑witness under the alias 'Kaptan'. The trial court convicted Ohara Singh under IPC s.302 and the Arms Act s.25,27 and Prem Das under IPC s.302 read with s.34. The Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted both, holding that PW‑3’s name was absent from the FIR and that the missing ballistic expert report warranted a benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court held that PW‑3’s name was indeed recorded in the FIR and that the absence of a ballistic report does not, per se, defeat the prosecution, citing earlier precedents. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the trial court’s conviction restored.
Issues considered
- The omission of a prosecution witness’s name from the FIR as a ground for acquittal
- The non‑production of a ballistic expert report and its effect on the prosecution case
- Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended in view of the evidence presented
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
murderIPC 302Arms Actballistic evidencebenefit of doubtFIReyewitness testimonycriminal appeal
Judgment
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 935
STATE OF M.P. A
v.
OHARA SINGH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2003)
MARCH 3, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 and s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Arms
Act, 1959 - s. 25 and 27 - Conviction under - However, c
acquittal by High Court extending benefit of doubt - On
appeal held: Conclusion of High Court that name of
prosecution witness not mentioned in FIR not correct- There
was no discussion of evidence of eye-witnesses - Also it
cannot be said that non-placing of the report of ballistic expert D
on record was fatal to prosecution case - Thus, order of High
Court set aside and that of trial court restored.
The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in
E
setting aside the conviction of respondent no. 1 uls. 302
IPC and ss. 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and respondent
no. 2 uls. 302 rlw s. 34 IPC, extending them benefit of
• doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: The conclusion of the High Court that PW-3's
name did not find place in the FIR is not correct. PW-2
clarified that in fact the name of PW-3 was indicated in
the FIR as · Kaptan'. It is seen that there was no G
discussion of the evidence of eye-witnesses. In what
cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential to
further the prosecution version would depend upon the
circumstances of each case. High Court was in error in
935 H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A directing acquittal of the respondents. The judgment of
the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is
-
restored. [Paras 4 and 5] [938-E-F; 939-E-F]
Chatar Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC
2474; Lakhbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1994
B
SC 1029 and Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand 2003
(12) sec 360, referred to.
•
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1976 SC 2474 Referred to. Para 4
c
AIR 1994 SC 1029 Referred to. Para 4
2003 (12) sec 360 Referred to. Para 4
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
D No. 1390 of 2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2002 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1993.
E
Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben, Vibha Datta Makhija for the
Appellants.
K. Sharda Devi for the Respondent.
•
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court, Gwalior Bench, directing acquittal of the
respondents. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena,
G had convicted respondent No.1 for offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC')
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959(in short the
'Arms Act'). Respondent No.2 was convicted for offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
H
STATE OF M.P. v. OHARA SINGH & ANR. 937
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-+ 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A
On 3.10.1998 Sohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') his son Ram Het, Dhanvanti, Ramswaroop, Kaptan
Singh and Bhagwan Singh came to Morena from Village
Rajyekapura for the treatment of Dhanvanti and to purchase B
fertilizer. They were returning back to their village in a bullock
cart at about 3.00 p.m. Said bullock cart was being driven by
Bhagwan Singh and the deceased Sohan Lal and Ram
Swaroop were behind the bullock cart. Ramhet, Dhanvanti and
Kaptan Singh were sitting in the bullock cart.
c
When the said bullock cart reached near Shivlal-ke-pura
Ki Mata, at that juncture accused Prem Das armed with a gun
and accused Ohara Singh armed with a katta came in front of
the bullock cart. Prem Das asked to stop the bullock cart and
thereafter upon his exhortation Ohara Singh fired the Katta, as D
a result of which Sohanlal died. The bullet hit the chest of the
deceased. Thereafter the accused persons fled away.
Two brothers of the accused had died 5.to 6 years ago in
the hospital with the result that the accused left the village after
E
disposing of their land to Gujiars. Subsequently, deceased had
purchased a portion of land from Gujiars. The accused persons
were under impression that the deceased got their brothers
killed.
The First Information Report (In short the 'FIR') was lodged F
by PW-2 Ramhet and in this manner the criminal law was set
in motion. The police thereafter arrived on the spot, prepared
the Panchnama, sent the dead body of the deceased to the
Hospital for post mortem, seized the wearing apparel of the
deceased and recorded the statements of the witnesses. G
After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since accused
" persons pleaded innocence trial was held.
The trial Judge after considering the evidence on record
found the accused persons guilty as noted above. In appeal H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A before the High Court it was primarily submitted that the
prosecution version is not acceptable. The evidence of the
witnesses did not inspire confidence. The bullet which was
found on the body of the deceased was recovered and was
sent for examination of the ballistic expert and his report was
B not placed on record. The High Court found that the name of
Bhagwan Singh (PW-3) did not find place in the FIR. The
State's stand was that neither of these two aspects rendered
the prosecution version suspect. The High Court however held
that the benefit of doubt was to be extended and directed
c acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
conclusions are very sketchy. There is no discussion of the eye
witnesses. Ram Het Singh (PW-2) the son of the deceased and
Bhagwan Singh (PW-3) who was the cousin of PW-2.
D Dhanwanti (PW-4) was the daughter-in-law of the deceased.
The FIR was lodged promptly. It is not a fact that the name of
PW-3 does not figure in the FIR. It has been clearly stated that
the cousin of the iflformant was an eye witness.
E 4. The conclusion of the High Court that PW-3's name did
not find place in the Fl R is not correct. As a matter of fact PW-
2 has clarified that in fact the name of Bhagwan Singh has been
indicated in the FIR as 'Kaptan'. Additionally, it is seen that there
is no discussion of the evidence of the eye witnesses. In what
F cases the examination of a ballistic report is essential to further
the prosecution version would depend upon the circumstances
of each case. In Chatar Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana
(AIR 1976 SC 2474) it was held that in the circumstances of
the case the non obtaining of the report of the ballistic expert,
could not shake the prosecution case in the least. The view was
G re-iterated in Lakhbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (AIR
1994 SC 1029). In this context a decision of this Court in ~
Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand (2003 (12) SCC 360)
is relevant. In paras 9 and 10 it was held as follows:
H "9. So far as the non-seizure of blood from the cot is
STATE OF M.P. v. OHARA SINGH & ANR. 939
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
concerned, the investigating officer has stated that he A
found bloodstained earth at the place of occurrence and
had seized it. Merely because it was not sent for chemical
examination, it may be a defect in the investigation but
does not corrode the evidentiary value of the eyewitnesses.
The investigating officer did not find presence of blood on B
the cot. The trial court and the High Court have analysed
this aspect. It has been found that after receiving the bullet
injury the deceased leaned forward and whatever blood
was profusing spilled over onto the earth.
10. So far as the effect of the bullet being not sent for
c
ballistic examination is concerned, it has to be noted that
Sukhwant Singh case is not an authority for the proposition
as submitted that whenever a bullet is not sent for ballistic
.. ' examination the prosecution has to fail. In that case one
of the factors which weighed with this Court for not finding D
the accused guilty was the prosecution's failure to send the
weapon and the bullet for ballistic examination. In the
instant case, the weapon was not seized. That makes a
significant factual difference between Sukhwant Singh
case and the present case." E
5. In view of the aforesaid, the High Court was in error in
directing acquittal of the respondents. The judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.
6. The appeal is allowed. F
N.J. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search