Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P.versusRAMESH @ CHHINGE & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 97
- Decided
- 3 February 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was unsustainable as it ignored material eye‑witness and medical evidence, and allowed the appeal, remitting the case for fresh consideration.
Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Ramesh (alias Chhinge) and three others for the murder of Ramavtar and attempted murder of two others. The trial court convicted them under IPC s.302 and s.302 r.w. s.34, and also under the Arms Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted the accused, relying on alleged discrepancies in eye‑witness accounts and questioning the time of death. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider crucial eye‑witness testimony and medical evidence, including a farsa injury to the deceased’s head, and therefore its judgment was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a detailed re‑examination of the evidence and a fresh decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused despite eye‑witness and medical evidence establishing the murder.
- Whether the prosecution proved the elements of IPC s.302 and s.302 r.w. s.34 beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the discrepancies regarding the time of death affect the liability of the accused.
- Whether the benefit of doubt principle applies to Ramesh (alias Chhinge) in the absence of direct evidence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1-B)(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 157
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
murderIPC 302section 34benefit of doubteye‑witness testimonymedical evidenceacquittalappealSupreme CourtremandArms Act
Judgment
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 818
A STATE OF M.P. ~-
v.
RAMESH @ CHHINGE & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2004)
FEBRUARY 3, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.] 4( _,. •
Penal Code, 1860- s.302 and s.302 rlw s.34- Conviction
c by trial court - High Court directing acquittal - Held: High
Court did not discuss the eye witnesses' version or even the
medical evidence - Matter remitted to High Court for detailed
analysis of the relevant evidence and for decision afresh.
D According to the prosecution, the accused-
respondents armed with rifles and farsa chased the
complainant party while they were proceeding towards
the Court on bicycles and caused the murder of PW16's
brother by firing gunshots at him and further attempted
on the life of PWs 1 and 16. Trial court after framing
E
charges and on analyzing the evidence convicted
respondents 1 and 3 u/s.302 IPC and respondents 2 and
4 u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted ...
the respondents. Hence the present appeal. '
.,l
F Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: There were five witnesses examined by the
prosecution who claimed to be eye witnesses. PW1 did
not support the prosecution version. However PWs. 3 &
G 16 fully corroborated the prosecution version. The High
Court erroneously observed that there was no injury. In
fact the evidence clearly established that the Respondent ,_ <
)...--
1 caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased. This
was not noticed by the High Court. Apart from the fact
H 818
STATE OF M.P. v. RAMESH @ CHHINGE & ORS. 819
that there was no discussion of the eye witnesses' A
version, even the medical evidence has not been
discussed. The High Court's judgment is clearly
unsustainable in view of the deficiencies highlighted
above. Normally, this Court would have restored the
judgment of the trial court. But in view of the fact that the B
respondents have not appeared in spite of the notice, the
matter is remitted to the High Court for detailed analysis
·-~ of the relevant evidence and fresh decision on merit
afresh. [Para 5] [823-C-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
c
No. 661 of 2004.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2003 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl.
Appeal No. 286 of 1996. D
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. E
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the acquittal
of the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of
~ offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
F
'• Code, 1860 (in short the · IPC') so far as respondents
Ramesh(A 1)andGurudayal(A3) are concerned and Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC so far as the respondents Kailash
(A2) and Pappu (A4) respectively are concerned. Additionally
respondent Gurudayal wascharged for alleged commission of
G
offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms
Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act').
~
2. Prosecution Version in a nutshell are as follows:
On 21.5.1993 at about 9 AM. near village Kurthara all the
H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 1 S.C.R.
A respondents caused murder of Ramavtar s/o Buddhasingh and
attempted on the life of Rajesh alias Raje and Manik Singh. On
21.5.1993 in the morning Manik Singh was required to attend
court for hearing at Bhind. For attending the Court he left village
Kurthara alongwith his brother Ramavtar, his wife's brother and
B his uncle-in-law Prahlad and Rajesh proceeding towards Court
on bicycles. Prahlad was riding the first cycle and Manik was
sitting on the carrier of the cycle behind him. Just behind
Prahlad, Rajesh alongwith Ramavtar was following in another
bicycle. When they were near the agricultural field of Ramkishan,
C then Gurudayal armed with. 315 bore rifle, Kailash armed with
single barrel .12 bore riffle, Pappu Yadav armed with single .12
bore rifle and Ramesh alias Chhinge armed with farsa were
chasing them. When they reached near the complainant party
Kailash fired from his .12 bore rifle. On hearing the gun shot
Ramavtar fell from the bicycle of Rajesh. As he got up,
0
Gurudayal shot at him with .315 bore rifle. The bullet pierced
through the body on the right side of chest and Kailash and
Pappu Yadav also fired with an intention to cause death, but
bullet had not hurt anyone. FIR is said to be lodged at 9.30 AM.
by Man Singh. Spot map (Ex.P-11) was drawn and one empty
E cartridge of .12 bore rifle and blood stained earth were seized
vide Ex.P.13.
Trial court after framing charges and on analyzing the
evidence tendered, convicted the appellants.
F Before the High Court it was stated that the incident
allegedly took place in the early morning and the time of incident
is mentioned as 9 AM. It was submitted that the FIR was
prepared with deliberation and there was non-compliance of
the req~irements of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal
G Procedure, 1973 (in short the ·code'). It was pointed out with
reference to the evidence of Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW 14) that
Prahlad and Manik Singh had identified the dead body and
they informed him that they had seen the dead body for the first
time at 7.30 AM. In the post mortem report Exh.P9 the doctor
H found that the stomach of the deceased was empty and there
STATE OF M.P. v. RAMESH@ CHHINGE & ORS. 821
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
was no digested or semi-digested food in the stomach. The A
period necessary for digestion and semi digestion food was
indicated by the doctor. It was therefore submitted before the
High Court that the incident took place around 7.30 AM and
the deceased was murdered by some unknown person and
because of enmity the accused persons were falsely B
implicated.
~ "'" With reference to Exh. P3 it was submitted that the time
of preparation of the spot map was earlier mentioned at 10.55
A.M. which was scored out and the time was changed to 9 AM.
Additionally it was submitted that when Safina form was
c
prepared at 10.45 A.M. question of preparation of map at 9
AM appears to be doubtful. Time earlier mentioned i'.e. 10.55
A.M. was the correct time mentioned in the inquest report. It
was pointed out that the FIR was prepared in the police station
whereas witnesses have deposed that the complaint was D
:Jr
recorded on the spot. Later on FIR was lodged at the police
station. In that view of the matter it was submitted that the FIR
""' was suppressed by the prosecution. PW3's evidence was
highlighted to show that in para 9 he had deposed that after
the fire he ran away from the spot and reported the matter to E
the station office incharge. He admitted that Manik had not
reached the police station before him as he was sitting by the
side of the dead body when police reached the spot. This
submission was corroborated by the statement of Manik
(PW16) who admitted that when Ramavtar was hit by F
Gurudayal, he remained at the spot till Town Inspector,
' Cosntable and other police officer reached the spot. He also
admitted that 10 to 20 villagers had gathered at the spot but
he had not told them about the incident.
G
Learned counsel appearing for the State before the High
Court submitted that there were certain minor corrections which
){_
did not corrode the credibility of the prosecution version. The
High Court noted that there are material discrepancies in the
eye witnesses' version. Considering the overall evidence it has
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A been established that deceased died on account of gunshot
injuries but that the overt act cannot be attributed to Kailash and
Pappu. Since witnesses had deposed that Ramesh was not
present at the spot, he was also given benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the conviction of Ramesh, Kailash and Pappu was
B set aside. So far as Gurudayal is concerned with reference to
the evidence of doctor it was held that the distance from which
the bullet was fired upon was not known. But he had mentioned
that the body was identified at 7.30 in the morning, whereas
the witnesses had deposed that the incident took place when
c they were proceeding towards the court. PW 4 had deposed
that the deceased had gone to court after taking meal but the
post mortem report is contrary to it. In view of this the High Court
directed acquittal.
3. There is no appearance on behalf of the accused in spite
D of service of notice.
4. At the outset it must be noticed that the judgment of the
High Court is fully unreasoned and the only conclusions for
directing acquittal are contained in paragraphs 7&9 which read
.
E as follows:
"l. We have heard the counsel for the parties. It is true that
there are material discrepancies in the eye witness
account. Firing by Kailash and Pappu has not injured
anyone and some witnesses have deposed that Ramesh
F was not present on the spot. Considering the overall
evidence it was established that the deceased diedon
account of gun shot injury, but act of kailash and Pappu is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since witnesses
have deposed that Ramesh was not present on the spot,
G he is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
9. As regards Gurudayal is concerned, in the evidence to
PW 14 Dr. K.N. Sharma, he was not able to state the
distance from which the bullet was fired upon the deceased
H but he has mentioned that the body was identified at 7.30
STATE OF M.P. v. RAMESH@ CHHINGE & ORS. 823
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
in the morning, whereas witnesses have deposed that the A
incident took place when they were proceeding towards
the court. Wife of Ramavtar (PW4) has deposed that the
deceased has gone to the court after having meals, but in
the post mortem report, no food was found in the stomach.
Therefore time of incident has been changed by the B
prosecution."
5. There were five witnesses examined by the prosecution
who claimed to be eye witnesses. Rajesh (PW1) did not
- support the prosecution version. However PWs. 3 & 16 i.e.
Prahlad and Manik fully corroborated the prosecution version. C
The High Court erroneously observed that there was no injury.
In fact the evidence clearly established that the Ramesh has
caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased. Unfortunately,
this was not noticed by the High Court. Apart from the fact that
there was no discussion of the eye witnesses' version, even the D
medical evidence has not been discussed. The farsa injury
caused on the head has not been noticed. The FIR was lodged
at about 9.30 A.M. The police station undisputedly was about
a distance of 6 km. The High Court's judgment is clearly
unsustainable in view of the deficiencies highlighted above. E
Normally, we would have restored the judgment of the trial court.
But in view of the fact that the respondents have not appeared
in spite of the notice, we remit the matter to the High Court for
detailed analysis of the relevant evidence and give fresh
decision on merit afresh. F
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
B.B.B. 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