NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1163  OF 2006

Aniruddha Singh  & Ors.           …..Appellant(s)

Versus

State of M.P. ….Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This appeal by special arises out of the following facts.

2.  On 1st August,  1991 at about 6.00 p.m.  Dharmendra

Singh PW 2 and Rajendra  Singh,  Bhawar  Singh,  Ram

Chandra Singh, Mandatar Singh, Mahendra Singh and

Krishna Kunwar Bai and her husband Dhyanpal Singh

deceased  having  taken their  buffaloes  for  grazing were

returning to the village.  As they reached near the field

known  as  ‘Goyrawali  Beed’,  the  accused  armed  with

Dhariyas, Farsis, Swords, and lathies surrounded them.

Anirudha Singh Patwari  exhorted  the other  accused  to

kill Dhyanpal Singh and on his exhortation,  Pradyumna

Singh  inflicted  an  injury  with  his  sword  on  Dhyanpal

Singh  and  Narendra  Singh  (since  acquitted)  caused  a

Dharia blow on his person whereas Anand Singh caused

an  injury  with  a  Farsi  whereas  all  the  other  accused

Surendra Singh, Balram Singh, Manohar Singh, Pratap

Singh,  Krishna  Singh  caused  injuries  with  lathies.

Dhyanpal Singh fell on the ground bleeding profusely. At

that moment his son, PW 2 Dharmendra Singh, and one

PW 14 Poona Balai also reached the spot and on account

of the noise raised by them PW 5 Mandatar Singh and

Gopal Singh also rushed that side.  Dhyanpal Singh was

taken in a tractor belonging to PW 11 Mahendra Singh

towards the hospital but he succumbed on the way.  PW

1  Krishna  Kunwar  Bai,  the  wife  of  the  deceased,

thereupon went on to the Police Station along with her

son Dharmendra Singh and lodged the First Information

2

Report at 8.45 p.m.  The police then reached the place of

occurrence and made the necessary inquiries.  The Trial

Court found that Anand Singh, one of the accused was a

Juvenile and his case was accordingly transferred to the

Juvenile Court whereas the other accused were brought

to  trial.   The  Trial  Court  examined  the  evidence  in

extenso and observed that both the parties i.e. accused

as well as the victims were very close relations of each

other,  Dhyanpal Singh deceased being the real brother

of  accused  Aniruddha  Singh.    The  Trial  Court  then

assessed  the  prosecution  evidence  and  observed  that

there was no reason to disbelieve the four eye witnesses

who  had  supported  the  prosecution  version  and  that

their  evidence  was  also  corroborated  by  the  medical

evidence  inasmuch  as  the  injuries  found  on  the  dead

body could have been caused with the weapons allegedly

used by the accused.  The Trial  Court  further observed

that as the enmity between the parties appeared to have

been long festering as the dispute with regard to the two

bighas of land which Dhaynpal Singh claimed as his own

3

but  was  disputed  by  his  brother  and  nephew,  it  was

appropriate that an assessment be made with regard to

the involvement of each of the accused. The Trial Court,

thereafter,   on a minute examination, held that as the

four eye witnesses were not unanimous with respect to

the  exact  role  of  the  some  of  the  accused,  they  were

entitled to the benefit of doubt and having so observed

acquitted  accused  Balram  Singh,  Krishna  Singh,

Narendra  Singh and Surindra Singh but convicted  the

present appellants for offences under Sections 302/149

IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life

and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of

fine  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  years.

The High Court in appeal confirmed the judgment of the

trial court. It is in these circumstances that the present

appeal has been filed.

3. Mr.  S.K.  Gambhir,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

accused - appellant has argued that the presence of PW

3 Bhagwan Singh and PW 4 Parkash Kunwar had to be

ruled out as the prosecution case itself revealed that they

4

had been at a distance of about 220 meters when the

incident had happened and as such they could not have

seen the actual assault. He has in this case referred to

the  statement  of  PW9  the  Patwari  and  PW17  the

Investigating Officer.   He has also submitted that PW3

had been identified  as  Bhagwan Singh but  the  person

mentioned in the FIR was one Gopal  and as such the

presence of  PW3 was also doubtful for this additional

reason as well.  He has also emphasized that a minute

examination of the eye witnesses account revealed that

Aniruddha Singh had been attributed only a Lalkara and

had caused no injury and that the eye witnesses were

discrepant with regard to the individual rolls of the other

accused as well.  He has also pointed out that the fatal

injury with a Dharia on the head had been attributed to

Narendra  Singh and as  he  had been  acquitted  by the

Trial  Court,  it  was apparent that the vicarious liability

under Sections 302/149 of the I.P.C was not made out

as the accused  had intended causing only hurt to the

deceased.  He has in support of the last argument cited

5

Ishwar  Singh  vs.   The  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  AIR

1976 SC 2423, Nadodi Jayaraman & Ors. Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu (1992) Supp 3  SCC 161, Tara Devi vs.

State of U.P.  (1990 ) 4 SCC 144,  Jaspal  Singh  vs.

State of Haryana (1976) 4 SCC 303.    

4. Dr.  N.M.  Ghatate,  the  learned  senior  counsel  has,

however,  pointed  out  that  the  Trial  Court  itself  had

separated the grain from the chaff and in that process

had given the benefit of doubt to four of the accused and

had held the present appellants guilty on account of the

fact  that  the  eye  witnesses’  account  relating  to  their

involvement was supportive of each other and was also

corroborated  by  the  medical  evidence.  He  has  also

pointed out that the presence of PW1 and PW2, the wife

and son of the deceased, could not be doubted under any

circumstances and that in the background that a melee

had occurred involving a large number of  assailants it

would  be  unreasonable  to expect  an accurate  blow by

blow  account  of  the  incident  and  that  the  Court  was

6

therefore obliged to make an over all assessment of the

evidence.  

5. At  the  very  outset,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the

incident had taken place at about 6.00 P.M. leading to

serious injuries to Dhyanpal Singh. An attempt had also

been made  to remove  him to  the hospital  in a tractor

belonging to PW Mahendra Singh but he had succumbed

along the way whereafter PW 1 had gone to the Police

Station  10  kms  distant  to  lodge  the  First  Information

Report.  It  has also come in the evidence  of  Dr. Anoop

Kumar Kamthan PW 13 that  the  dead  body had been

received in the hospital at 9.00 P.M. the same evening.  It

is therefore apparent that the very promptness of the FIR

is a factor which must be kept in mind while evaluating

the prosecution story.  It  is true that PW 3 and PW 4

were  at  a  distance  of  220  meters  from  the  place  of

incident.  PW 3 Bhagwan Singh is a  relative of both the

accused  and  the  deceased  whereas  PW  4  Prakash

Kunwar  is  the  daughter  of  Dhyanpal  Singh  deceased.

Both  the  witnesses,  were  unanimous  in  saying  that

7

before  the  actual  assault,  they  had  heard  Krishna

Kunwar Bai PW 1 screaming in alarm and calling for help

and on which they had run in that direction and seen the

actual incident.  Mr. Gambhir has, however, pointed out

that Bhagwan Singh’s name had not figured in the First

Information  Report  and  the  story  which  had  been

projected  was  some  what  difficult  to  believe  and  it

appeared that he had been prevailed upon to become a

false witness.  We find that Bhagwan Singh’s presence

may be some what doubtful as his statement Ex.D-3 had

been recorded two days after the incident and that too in

the Police Station and his name also did not figure in the

First  Information  Report,  but  even  assuming  that

Bhagwan Singh’s presence could be doubted, there is no

doubt whatsoever with regard to the presence of PW 1

Krishna Kunwar Bai, PW 2 Dharmendra Singh and PW 4

Prakash Kunwar. We are also of the opinion that the eye

witnesses account is supported by the medical evidence

which  shows  the  presence  of  12  injuries  on  the  dead

8

body caused with several different types of weapons.  The

injuries are re-produced as below:

“(1) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 x bone deep, right parietal region, clotted blood all around.   On  exploration  all  layer ecchymosis  with blood.   Fracture  of the  parietal  bone.   There  was extradural  and  intracranial haemorrhage seen.  

(2) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with  haematoma  in  area  of  6  cm  x  4  cm., parieto occipital region.

(3) Haemotoma with swollen 4 cm x 4 cm area, over  the  left  parietal  region.  Extradural haemorrhage seen.

(4) Diffuse swollen 10” x 6” right lower left thigh. On  exploration  compound  fracture  of  femur bone was seen.

(5) Deformity with swelling 6” x 4” area middle of left  fore  arm.   Fracture  of  radius  and  ulna shaft.

(6) Deformity with swelling 4” x 4” over the right hand fracture of metacarpal bone of IInd, 3rd and 4th Fingers.

(7) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm over the right chest.

(8) Incised would 6 cm x 2 cm x one forth finger is  amputed  form its  base  and IIIrd  finger  is attached to skin.

9

(9) Contusion  10  cm x  2  cm Right  back  below scapula.

(10) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm over the right back L1, L2, L3 level.

(11) Swelling around the left ankle     6 cm x 6 cm.

(12) Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm area around right elbow joint.  

6.       Mr. Gambhir has laid great stress on his submission

that as only injury No.1 was on the head and the others

being on vital parts of the body indicated that there was

no common object of the unlawful assembly to murder

Dhyanpal Singh. We, however, beg to differ as the very

genesis of the incident i.e. the motive for the attack and

the  manner  in  which the  complainant  party  had been

waylaid by several  persons armed with lethal  weapons

and the fact that a large number of injuries with several

fractures had been caused, show that the accused party

had  come  with  the  intention  of  settling  scores  with

Dhyanpal Singh.   

10

7.     Much emphasis has been laid by Mr. Gambhir on the

possibility  as  to  the  participation  of  Aniruddha  Singh

accused.  He has pointed out that from the evidence, it

appeared  that  the  fatal  injury  on  the  head  of  the

deceased  had  been  caused  by  Narendra  Singh  (since

acquitted) with a Dharia and in this view of the matter

the  only  role  which  could  be  attributed  to  Aniruddha

Singh was that of  a  Lalkara   i.e.  an exhortion to the

other accused.

8. It has, however, been pointed out by State Counsel that

as a matter of fact, Aniruddha Singh had caused injury

No.1 and not Narendra Singh and that the trial  Court

had  dealt  with  this  matter  in  extenso  and  after  going

through the eye witnesses’ account observed that it was

Aniruddha Singh who had caused the said injury to the

deceased with an axe and  the mere fact that the First

Information Report was silent on this aspect  would not

dislodge  the  prosecution  story  in  the  face  of

overwhelming  eye  witnesses’  testimony.   Moreover,  it

needs  to  be  reiterated  that  as  per  the  evidence,

11

Aniruddha Singh,  was the leader  of  the accused party

and in the forefront of the land dispute.  The judgments

cited by Mr. Gambhir based on their own facts, can thus

have no relevance to the facts of the case.

9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in

this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

…….…………………….. J. ( S.B. SINHA)

……………………………J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

New Delhi

Dated: May 16, 2008

12