Holding

The High Court erred in acquitting the accused; the evidence establishes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying conviction under Section 304 (II) read with 149 and upholding the other convictions.

Summary

The State of Madhya Pradesh prosecuted Sugharsingh and others for attacking two men guarding their crops to prevent cattle from being taken to a pond, resulting in one death and injuries to the other. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 read with 149, 324 read with 149, 148 and sentenced them to life imprisonment and additional terms. The High Court acquitted them, holding that inconsistencies between eye‑witness accounts and medical evidence created reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the medical and eyewitness evidence was not inconsistent, the injuries were clearly established, and the facts showed a sudden assault aimed at preventing the victims from moving cattle, constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, modified the murder conviction to Section 304 (II) read with 149, restored the convictions under Sections 148 and 324 (149), and imposed six years’ rigorous imprisonment for the 304 (II) offence.

Issues considered

Whether the inconsistencies between eye‑witness testimony and medical evidence warrant an acquittal.
Whether the offence committed amounts to murder under Section 302 read with 149 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (II) read with 149.
Whether the convictions under Sections 148 and 324 (149) should be upheld.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(II), s. 324, s. 406

Subjects

culpable homicide not amounting to murdersection 304section 302section 149unlawful assemblymedical evidenceeye‑witness testimonyappealSupreme Court of IndiaMadhya Pradesh

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 725
__,.
4 t
~ STATE OF M.P.· A
v.,
SUGHAR SINGH. & ORS.
,
I
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1362-1'363 of 2004)
-1
NOVEMBER7, 2008 ·
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
. Y'
Penal Code, 1860:
c
ss. 304 (part II) rlw s. 149 and ss. 148 and 3241149 -
Accused attacking the complainant and his companion in
order to prevent their cattle from being taken to cattle pond -
Incident, resulting in death of one of the victims and injuries
to the other - Conviction by trial court ulss 3021149, 148 and D
3241149 - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: High Court
T committed an error in ordering acquittal on the ground -of
inconsistency in medical evidence and eye-witness account
- Prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed about
participation of the accused in the crime - Injuries sustained
E
by victims have been clearly established - However, in view
of nature of injuries and totality of facts and circumstances,
the offence committed is culpable homicide not amounting
to murder - Judgment and order of acquittal passed by High
, 'l( Court set aside - Accused convicted uls 304 (part II) rlw s. 149
F
/PC and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment -
Conviction and sentences ulss 148, 3241149 as recorded by
trial court also restored.

The respondents were prosecuted for commission of
offences punishable ulss 3021149, 3241149, 147, 148 and G
-< 406 IPC. The prosecution case was that while PW-2 and
his companion were guarding their crop, some cattle from
the neighbouring village entered their fields at about 3-4
"' A.M. They surrounded and started taking the cattle to
:
725 H
'....
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A cattle pond. At that time the accused appeared armed )-
with 'farsa', 'ballam', 'lathi' etc. and attacked PW-2 and his
companion. On the shouts of the injured, PWs 8 to 10 and
another petson who were also· guarding their crops
reached the spot. The accused left the place taking away
s the cattle with them. An FIR was lodged. The injured were
medically- examined at-the Primary Health Centre. Since
the condition. of the companion ·of PW-2 was critical, he
was referred to the District Hospital. However, he died on
the way. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 302/
c 149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They
were further convicted u/s 324/149 and s.148 and each
of them was sentenced to two years rigorous
/-
imprisonment under each count. However, the High Court
acquitted all of them of all the charges holding that there
was inconsistency between the eye-witness account and
0
the medical evidence. Aggrieved, the State filed the
appeals.
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court I

·-
E HELD: 1.1. As far as the contradictions in the
deposition of eye witnesses and medical evidence is
concerned, the High Court was not right in coming to the
conclusion_ that medical evidence did not support the
version of eye-witnesses. It is clearly established from the
F evidence of PW-2, who was injured during the incident, )( I

and other eye-witnesses PWs 4 and 8 that the
prosecution witnesses were in their fields protecting the
crop in the early morning and the cattle entered the fields.
PW-2 and the deceased wanted to take the cattle to cattle
pond. The said act enraged the accused and they
G attacked PW-2 and the deceased causing injuries to them.
There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of.
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the
incident as also participation of the accused. [Para 13]
H [731-G-H; 732-A-C]
STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 727

--(
1.2. Injuries sustained by the deceased and PW2 A
~
have been clearly established. The main reason weighed
.. with the High Court was that the doctor, PW-1, had opined
'
that he did not find any incise wound on the head of the
deceased. However, PW5, the doctor, who had examined
the deceased immediately after the incident and referred B
him to the District Hospital, had stated that there were two
incise injuries, one of which was on the middle of the

- y
head. In fact, when a question was put to PW-1 in the
cross-examination, he stated, "after dressing, it is difficult
to tell about the nature of injuries". In view of the
explanation, it was clear that the High Court committed
c
an error in ordering acquittal on the ground of
inconsistency in medical evidence and version of eye-
1
witnesses. [Para 14] [732-C, F]
'
2. Considering the nature of injuries caused to the D
deceased, and totality of facts and circumstances, the
case does not fall within the definition of 'murder' as
defined in Section 300, punishable u/s 302, IPC, but is a
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable u/s 304 (part-II) IPC. It has also come in E
-----<:
evidence that the incident took place 'all of a sudden'.
When the accused saw that the deceased and PW-2 were
taking cattle to cattle pond, the accused with a view to
prevent them from doing so attacked them. [Para 17 and
18] [733-F-H] F
3. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
conviction of the respondents for an offence punishable
u/s 302 read with Section 149, IPC recorded by the trial
Court is modified to an order of conviction u/s 304 part- G
11 read with s.149, IPC. The accused are ordered to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. The order
of the trial court convicting the accused u/s 148, IPC as
also u/s 324 read with s.149, IPC for causing grievous
hurt to PW2 and sentencing them in respect of. both the
H

-1
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A offence~ is restored. [Para 19] [734-A-C]

'GRIMtNAL· APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal Nos.' 1362-1363 of 2004 .
• •: ' : ' . ._; .• t. i~·. t· • ~

" 'From·the final Order and Judgment dated 3.1.2003 of the
B High Court of Madhya Pradesh; Bench at Gwalior in Crl: Appeal
Nos. 242·and 253·of 1991.

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant.

C Naresh Kaushik and Lalita Kaushik for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of
common judgment and order passed by the High Court of
D Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) dated January 3, 2003 in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 242 of 1991 and 253 of 1991. By the
said order, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the y
accused and set aside the order of conviction and sentence
recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri dated
E October 14, 1991 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1990.

2. The case of the. prosecution is that on October 20, 1989 L
Balkishan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and PW
2 Sarvan Lal .were guarding their Jowar· crop and for the said
purpose they had stayed during night time in their field. Their
F neighbour farmers, namely, Ramprasad (PW8), Ramsingh
(PW9) and Raghunath (PW10) were also guarding over their
respettive crops and were in the huts constructed in their fields.
According to the prosecution, at about 3-4 a.m. early in the
morning, cattle of village Nehgawan started grazing the Jowar
G crop· of the deceased. Deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal
(PW2) surrounded the cattle and started taking them to cattle
pond. ;A.t that time, all accused persons who were residents of
village Nehgawan appeared on the spot. They were armed with
lethal weapons, like farsa, ballam, luhangi, lathi, etc. They
H attacked Balkishan and Sarvan Lal and caused injuries to them.
STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 729
•' [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

On the shouts of injured Balkishan and Servanlal, Ram Singh, A
_...
. Raghu Nath, Ram Prasad and Ram Niwas reached there and
saved Balkishan and Sarvan Lal. The accused did not allow
the cattle to be taken to cattle pond and took away with them.
While leaving the place, they threatened deceased Balkishan
and Sarvan Lal of their lives. B
3. Immediately after the incident, deceased Balkishan and
Sar\/an Lal went to thana and lodged First Information Report
~
v (FIR) at Police Station Rannod. The incident was narrated by
deceased Balkishan and Case No. 57 of 1989 of was
registered against the accused for offences punishable under
c
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 406 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). Both the injured were then taken to Primary
· Health Centre, Rannod for medical examination. Dr. Suresh
Majeji (PW5) examined Balksihan. He also examined Sarvan
D
Lal. Since the condition of Balkishan was critical, he was taken
to District Hospital, Shivpuri. On the way, however, Balkishan
1' died. Postmortem of Balkishan was performed by Dr. G.D.
Agrawal (PW 1) on the next day i.e. on October 21, 1989. Usual
investigation was carried out, accused were arrested, weapons
were recovered at their instance and charge was framed E
against the accused. They denied having committed any
offence and claimed to be tried.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri
believed the evidence of PW 2 Sarvan Lal, PW 4 Ram Niwas, F
PW 8 Ram Prasad, (eye witnesses) and PW 1 Dr. G.D.
Agarwal, convicted all the accused for an offence punishable
under Sections 143, 302 read with 149 and 324 read with 149,
148, IPC for forming unlawful assembly and for causing death
of Balkishan and for causing grievous hurt to Sarvan Lal in
G
furtherance of common object. They were accordingly punished
for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
149, IPC for which they were ordered to undergo rigorous
~ imprisonment for life. For the offence punishable under Section
324 read with Section 149, IPC, they were ordered to undergo
H
. 730'. SUPREME COtJRT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A' iri1pris6nment for two years. Similarly, for an offence under
Section 148, IPC, they were ordered to undergo rigorous
· · imprisonment for two years.

. . 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by
the trial Court, the respondent-herein preferred appeals~ As r•
8
stated above, the High Court, vide its judgment and order dated
\,
January 3, 2003, set aside the order of conviction·and sentence
recorded by the trial Court and acquitted all the accused mainly J'
~·
on the ground that there was inconsistency between the v ..
C evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence.

6. The State has challenged the order of acquittal
recorded by the High Court.

7. Notice was issued by this Court on March 19, 2004 .
.0 Leave was granted on November 19, 2004. The matter has now
been placed before us for final hearing.

· 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.·

9. The learned counsel for the State contended that the
E High Court was wholly wrong in allowing the appeal filed by the
accused and in acquitting them for the offences with which they
were charged and convicted by the trial Court. It was submitted
that the trial Court, after properly appreciating the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, held that the incident in question was
. F proved, all the accused were members of unlawful assembly,
they attacked deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal. Several
injuries were caused to deceased Balkishan and injured Sarvan
Lal. Participation of accused persons was proved beyond
reasonable doubt from the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
G namely, Pw2:..sarvan Lal-injured eye-witness and PW 4 Ram
Niwas, and PW8-Ram Prasad (other eye-witnesses). Injuries
caused to deceased Balkishan and injured Sarvan Lal were
'proved oy medical examination. The prosecution evidence also
. went to show th'at the accused had committed the above
.: H. · offences in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly
STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 731
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

A as deceased Balkishan and Sarvan Lal were taking cattle of ·A
the accused to cattle pond. The accused did not allow the cattle
to be taken to cattle pond and attacked deceased Balkishan
and Sarvan Lal with lethal weapons. There was no inconsistency
in. the evidence of eye:.witnesses and ·medical evidence~ The
trial Court considered the evidence of eye-Witne·sses. Ir a~so B
considered medical evidence and held that the incident and
participation of the accused was clearly proved.··
.., 10. The High Court disbelieved the prosecution case on
incorred appreciation of evidence and set aside the order of
conviction. The impugned order of the High Court, hence,
c
deserves to be set aside by allowing the appeal and by
restoring the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the
trial Court.

11: The learned counsel for the respondents-accused, on D
,,. the other hand, supported the order: passed by the High Court.
It was submitted that taking into account inconsistencies and
contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the
High Court extended benefit of doubt to the accused and there
is no reason to interfere with the said finding. It was also E
submitted that even if this Court feels that two views are
possible, benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the accused
and not to the prosecution. In any case, in exercise of power
under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court may not interfere
-;r
with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court and the F
appeals may be dismissed.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our
opinion, the appeals deserve to be partly allowed.

13. As far as the contradictions in the deposition of eye G
witnesses and medical evidence is concerned, in our opinion,
the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that
_..
medical evidence did not support the version of eye-witnesses.
It is clearly established from the evidence of injured eye-witness,
PW2-Sarvan Lal and PWs 4 and 8 Ram Niwas and Ram H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A Prasad that the prosecution witnesses were in their fields
protecting the crop of Jowar in the early morning of October
20, 1989 ·and the cattle entered the fields. Deceased Balkishan
and inj1Jred PW2-Sarvan Lal wanted to take them to cattle pond.
The said act enraged the accused and they attacked Balkishan
B and Sarvan tal which resulted in the death of Balkishail and
caused serious injuries to PW2-Sarvan Lal. There was no
reason to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
PW2-Sarvan Lal was injured during the same incident. The
prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the
c prosecution with regard to the incident as also participation of
the accused.

14. Injuries sustained by deceased Balkishan and injured
Sarvan Lal-PW2 have ·been clearly established: The main
reason weighed with the High Court was that PW1-Dr. G.D.
D . Agrawal (PW 1) had found seven injuries 6n the body of the
deceased and he had opined that the injuries were caused by ~.

hard and blunt substance. PW1-Dr. G.D~ Agrawal did not find '
any incise wound on the head ·of the deceased~ PWS-Dr. Suresh
Majeji who had examined the deceased immediately after the
E incident and advised him to be taken to the District Hospital
had stated that there were two incise injuries, one on the middle
of the_ h~ad .and the other on the medial aspect of lower 1/3" of
the right leg. According to the High Court, therefore, medical
evidence was not consistent with the prosecution evidence and
F the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in acquitting
the accused on the ground that there was inconsistency in the
medical evidence and medical evidence is not in accord with
G ·ocular evidence of the prosecution.witnesses. Dr.·Suresh Majeji
(PW5),. in his sworn testimony stated ~hat he appli~d .stitches
. on the wounds of the deceased. Since .his. condition was
serious, he .was advised to go to District Hospital but pefore
the deceased reached there, he died. In fact, when a question
H was··put to PW~-Dr.G.D. Agrawal in the ~rqss-examination on

·.
STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 733
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

behalf of the accused regarding injuries sustained by deceased A
.... Balkishan, the latter replied that he did not find incise wound
--( either on the forehead or at the right thigh. He, however, stated;.
• "After dressing, it is difficult to tell about the nature of injuries".
In view of the above explanation, it was clear that the High Court
GOmmitted an error in ordering acquittal on the ground of B
inconsistency in medical evidence and version of eye-
-(
witnesses. To that extent, therefore, the decision of the High
Court deserves to be interfered with.
\ ...,
16. As far as injuries to the deceased Balkishan are
concerned, he had the following injuries;
c
(
(1) Incised wound 1' x 1/2" x 1/4" on the middle of the
head. Margin clean cut well defined.

(2) No injury seen on the left lower limb. 'D
(3) Incised wound d1"x1/4"4x1" deep on the medial
aspect of lower 1/3" of the right leg. Margin clean
cut bleeding present, whole lower left leg below
· knee joint to be left ankle joint.
E
(4) Multiple contusions 4"x2 and 5"x2 were present on
the back. Bluish red colour.

17. It has also come in evidence that the incident took
place 'all of a sudden'. When the accused saw that deceased
.~ F
Balkishan and Sarvan Lal were taking cattle to cattle pond, they
wanted both of them not to do so and with a view to prevent
them from taking cattle to cattle pond, the accused attacked
them.

18. Considering the nature of injuries, and totality of facts G
' and circumstances, ·we are of the view that the case does not
fall within the definition of 'murder' as defined in Section 300,
..A
IPC punishable under Section 302, IPC, but in a case of
.
-4
culpable homicide, not amounting to murder punishable under
Section 304 II, IPC. H
734 SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS [2008]' 15 S.C.R.

A . ·.19. For the foregoing reasons, in.our opinion; t~e appecils .
;._
deserve to be. P?rtly. allowed and are allpwed by setting asic;le
the order of.a.cquittaJ recorded by the Hjgh Court. yve, theref9re,
,.1-
convict.the res.pondents-accused. The conviction of the
respondents for an offence pu~ishable.under Section 302 read
B with Section 149, IPC recorded by the trial Court for causing
death of deceased Balkishan is modified to an order of
conviction punishable under Section 304, Part II read with. l-

Section 149, IPC. The accused are ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six years. Conviction under Section ,,.
c 148, IPC as also under Section 326 read with Section 149, IPC
for causing grievous hurt to PW2 Sarvan Lalis maintained in
view of the fact that the High Court was not right in interfering
with the order passed by the trial Court: °The sentence awarded t
on the accused in respect of both the offences also calls for
no interference.
D
20. The appeals are partly allowed and the accused are
-.(
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II
read with Section 149, IPC and they are ordered to undergo
ri.gorous imprisonment for six years. Since t~e order of acquittal
E was reeorded by the High Court, the respondents-accused are
ordered to surrender to undergo Jhe remaining period of
sentence. It is needless to clarify that the period d,uring which
the accused had remained in jail will be adjusted.

F 21. Ordered accordingly.
')-

RP. Appeals partly allowed.