1

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1496 OF 2004

   TEJ SINGH & ORS. ..... PETITIONER

VERSUS

   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out  

of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  

dated  28th January, 2004 whereby the conviction of the  

appellants for the offence punishable under Sections  

302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal  

Code  recorded  by  the  Sessions  Judge,  has  been  

maintained by the High Court.

2. As per the prosecution story the two deceased,  

Lakhan  Singh  and  his  brother  Jagdish,  were  

agriculturists with a land holding in village Dadoi,  

Police Station Satanvada.  On 7th September, 1990, Babu  

Singh  P.W.  8  took  some  rice  to  Jagdish  in  village  

Dadoi.  Jagdish was the owner of some buffaloes.  The  

two deceased accompanied by Babu Singh then took the  

buffaloes out from the village for grazing and as they  

came out of the village on to the banks of the river  

Sindh they were waylaid by Tej Singh, appellant  armed

2

with a luhangi,  Pappu armed with an axe, Dashrath with  

a lathi and Hanumant Singh with a Barchhi.   Pappu who  

was  subsequently  declared  a  juvenile  (and  is  being  

dealt with separately) opened  the attack on the two  

deceased  and  all  the  accused  caused  them  several  

injuries  with  their  weapons.   Babu  Singh  P.W.,  

overtaken by fear, hid himself behind some bushes and  

saw the entire incident.  On hearing the noise Bhola,  

Komal and Angad P.Ws. also reached the spot.  They  

found that Lakhan Singh was dead and Jagdish was alive,  

though grievously injured.  On an enquiry by Kok Singh-  

P.W.  10  who  had  also  been  attracted  to  the  place  

Jagdish narrated the entire incident to the aforesaid  

witnesses inasmuch that he had been beaten by the three  

sons of Anantram and Tej Singh and having made the  

dying declaration died soon after.  The investigation  

was  thereafter  initiated  on  the  basis  of  the  FIR  

registered at the police station and on the completion  

of the trial conviction as aforesaid was  recorded by  

the trial court.  This has been affirmed by the High  

Court.   

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged  

that the evidence of P.W.8 – Babu Singh, the first  

informant could not be relied upon as  he being a party  

man of the deceased, the story projected by him was  a  

complete concoction.  He has also pointed out that in

3

the light of the medical evidence on record it was not  

possible for the deceased Jagdish to have made a dying  

declaration as he was in a critical condition.   

4. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, the learned counsel for  

the State of Madhya Pradesh has, however, refuted the  

arguments  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant.  

5. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  very  

carefully.

6. We see absolutely no reason to disbelieve P.W.  

8.  Admittedly he bore no animosity with the appellants  

which  could  motivate  him  to  make  a  false  statement  

against them.  He has also clearly stated that he had  

witnessed the incident from behind the bushes close by  

and has in his statement given graphic a blow by blow  

account of the participation of each of the accused.  

Likewise,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  oral  dying  

declaration given by Jagdish inspires confidence.  P.W.  

2  Bhola  and  Komal  Singh  P.W.  3  have  categorically  

deposed that on the prodding of Kok Singh, Jagdish had  

made  a  dying  declaration  naming  the  accused  as  the  

assailants.  No animosity whatsoever had been suggested  

by the defence against these two witnesses as well.  In  

this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal  

which is, accordingly, dismissed.

4

......................J  [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

......................J NEW DELHI  [C.K. PRASAD] JULY 13, 2010.

5