[Non-Reportable]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 207-209 OF 2005

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                        …..APPELLANT

VS. CHANDU & ORS.                                             ….RESPONDENTS

WITH CRL.A. NOs.763-765 OF 2005  

AND CRL.A. NOs.766-769 OF 2005

           J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This  judgment  will  dispose  of  three  sets  of  Criminal  

Appeal  Nos.  207-209/2005,  763-765/2005,  and  766-

769/2005 as they arise out of the judgment of the Madhya  

Pradesh High Court dated 18th September 2003.  In the light of  

the  fact  that  we  intend  to  remand this  matter  to  the  High  

Court for re-decision, only the bare facts are being given.  The  

incident happened at about midnight of the night intervening  

the  29th and  30th June  1995.   In  all  three  matters,  the  

allegations are that the appellants and some others all armed

Crl. Appeal No.207-209/2005

with  firearms  had  first entered the house of Mardan  

Singh PW and shot dead Devendrasingh, Shankarsingh and  

Komalsingh;   they  had  thereafter  entered  the  house  of  

Ashoksingh and shot and killed him and his wife Purnawati  

and thereafter entered the house of Betal Singh and shot him  

dead  as  well.    The  trial  court  on  a  consideration  of  the  

evidence in the case awarded a death sentence to Chandu and  

a sentence of life imprisonment to Balveer and Bheekam for  

the  first  incident.   For  the  second  incident,  Balveer  was  

sentenced to death, and for the third Chandu was sentenced  

to death and Bheekam to life imprisonment.  The trial court  

observed that the eye witness account inspired confidence and  

though  there  was  one  eye  witness  for  each  of  the  three  

incidents, the accused had been identified by the witnesses as  

they  were  all  belonged  to  the  same  village  and  were  

neighbours.  The trial court also held that there was evidence  

to show the presence of light bulbs in each of the houses by  

which the accused had been identified.  The matters were then  

taken to the High Court in murder references and in appeal.  

The  High  Court  has  declined  the  murder  references  and  

2

Crl. Appeal No.207-209/2005

allowed the appeal acquitting the accused.  The High Court  

noticed  several  arguments  raised  before  it  but  by  a  cryptic  

judgment disposed of the matter in one paragraph observing  

that  as  there  appeared  to  be  no  light  in  any  of  the  three  

houses  where  the  murders  had  been  committed,  it  was  

apparent  that the eye witnesses could not have identified the  

accused.   The present  set  of  appeals  has been filed by the  

State of Madhya Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High  

Court.

2. Several  arguments were raised by Mr.  Siddharth Dave,  

the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh.   He has  

primarily  pointed out  that  the High Court  had misread the  

evidence  with  regard  to  the  presence  of  the  electric  

lights/connections at the three places where the murders had  

been committed and that the Court had ignored vital aspects  

in the evidence while rendering its judgment with regard to six  

ghastly murders.   

3. Mr.  T.N.Singh  and  Mr.  S.K.Dubey,  the  learned  senior  

counsel for the respondents, have however, pointed out that it  

was  not  open  to  this  Court,  in  normal  circumstances,  to  

3

Crl. Appeal No.207-209/2005

interfere in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the  

High Court as the High Court was the final court of fact and  

that if the view taken by the High Court was possible on the  

evidence and not perverse, interference should not be made.  

They have also referred us to several parts of the evidence to  

argue that the evidence in the matter was discrepant not only  

with regard to the provision of an electric connection or the  

presence of an electric bulb but even on other vital  aspects  

including  the  fact  that  FIR had been recorded  after  a  long  

delay.

4. As already noted above, we are not inclined to examine  

the evidence as we intend to remand the matter for a fresh  

hearing.   We are of the opinion that the High Court’s order  

was cryptic and did not minutely examine the evidence though  

it  was  the  final  court  of  fact  and  more  particularly  as  it  

involved  six  murders.   We  make  it  clear  that  we  are  not  

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but we do feel  

that a more elaborate and comprehensive discussion on the  

evidence  was  required  to  be  made.   We,  thus,  feel  it  

appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court so that  

4

Crl. Appeal No.207-209/2005

the  remedy  which  may subsequently be available to  

either of the parties before the Supreme Court, is not taken  

away.   We,  accordingly,  allow  the  appeals,  set  aside  the  

judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High  

Court for fresh decision to be rendered after a re-appraisal of  

the  evidence.   In the  light  of  the  fact  that  the  respondents  

herein  have  been acquitted  by  the  High  Court,  we  deem it  

proper notwithstanding that these appeals are being allowed  

that they shall  continue to remain on bail  till  the matter is  

finally  disposed  off  by  the  High  Court.   We,  once  again,  

reiterate that any observation made herein should not be read  

as a reflection of our opinion on the merits of the case.  The  

parties are directed to appear before the Registrar of the High  

Court on the 10th January 2011, for the purpose of fixing a  

date for final hearing.  We also request to the High Court to  

dispose of the references and the appeals as expeditiously as  

possible. [[[

………………………………….J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

………………………………….J.

5

Crl. Appeal No.207-209/2005

(CHANDRAMAULI KR.  PRASAD)

New Delhi, Dated: December 02, 2010.

6