BALIRAJ SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 25-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 251 
BALIRAJ SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.333of2013) 
APRiL 25, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRAl<'ULLA C. PANT, .JJ.j 
Penal Code, 1860 ~ s. 302134 - Murder - Col/lplainant '.v case 
that appellant, Al and A2 allacked the victim with lathis, resulting 
in his death - Seizure of lathis allegedly used in tl1e crime -
Examination of 13 prosecution witnesses - Conviction uls. 302134 
by the courts below - Held: Colltradiction about the time of arrival 
. of the witnesses and their statement. thus credence could not be 
al/ached - Circumstances warranted application of due care and 
caution in appreciating the statements of eyewitnesses because the 
prime eyewitnesses were related inter-se and to the deceased - Courts 
below erred in not applying the principle of strict scrutiny in 
assessing the evidence of eyewitnesses -As regards nature of injury, 
contradictions between the ocular w1d medical evidence - No11-
exa111inat ion of Police o_fficer who conducted sei~ure - Also 
subsequent improvement by one of the eye-witness - Tims, the 
prosecution case is doubtful - Accused-appellant cannot be held 
guilty of the offence - Order of conviclion by the courts below set 
aside - Evidence - Witness. 
Criminal jurisprudence - Medical evidence - Significance 
of - Held: ls onzv corroborative - /1 proves thul the injuries could 
have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more - Defence 
can make use of the medical evidence to prove that the injuries 
could not possibly have been caused in !he manner alleged and 
thereby discredit the eyewimesses. 
Allowing the aiJiJCal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There was no pc11cc and harmony between the 
victim and accused groups as they locked horns with each other 
over a longstanding disr>ute dating back 30 years, relating to 
mutation [Jroceedings of some landed iJroperty. [Para 71[256-C-
DJ 
251 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
252 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
1.2 Veracity of the statements of two witnesses PW8 and 
PW9 is doubtful at the threshold itself, as they do not tally with 
the statement of PW12 who admittedly reached the place of 
occurrence first. !Para 911257-A) 
1.3 Considering the totality of the prosecution case, it cannot 
be understood that at the time of such occunence in a small village, 
when there was sunlight and PW8 ~nd PW9 along with villagers 
rushed upon hearing uproar of PW12, no attempt was made by 
any of the eyewitnesses or villagers to catch hold of the accused. 
This lacuna in the prosecution case. becomes stronger with the 
fact that in the J.•lR it was clearly mentioned, as PW8 stated to 
the complainant that upon hearing hue and cry from the field, • 
PW9, PW12 and other people of village rushed to the field. Though 
there was no indication in the HR on PW8 herself rushing to the 
scene of offence, it is however, apparent that some other people 
of village rushed to the place of occurrence, but there was none 
among the villagers who rushed with PWs 8 and 9 as independent 
eyewitness. [Para 10](257-B-DI 
1.4 It is true that other than PW12-family friend of the 
deceased, the prosecution has not mmle any imlependent witness 
from the village people who rushed to the place of offence along 
with PWs 8 and 9 on hearing hue and cry from the field. The 
circumstances warrant application of due care and caution in 
appreciating the statements of eyewitnesses because of the fact 
that the prime eyewitnesses are related inter-se and to the 
deceased. Hence, the prosecution failed to put a ·strong case as 
credence cannot be attached to the statements of PWs 8, 9 and 
12. The courts below erred in not applyii1g the principle of strict 
scrutiny in assessing the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 8, 9 and 
12. [Para l1Jl257-E-I<'] 
1.5 The postmortem report was prepared by PW 13-doctor. 
In his evidence, the doctor confirmed that cause of death was 
due to excessive hemorrhage form the ()Unctured wound over 
th.e right side of neck caused by sharp piercing object aud due to 
punctured major blood vessel, over right side of neck. It is pn 
record that at the instance of the accused-appellant, police 
recovered /(It/ii allegedly used in the offence. However, nowhere 
it is recorded that the seized latlli contained any sharp edges 
BALIRAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
with iron coated. Even it was not sent for examination of PW .13 
to ascertain whether the fatal injury could be resulted by it. 
Mor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.