LexBALVIR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
BALVIR SINGH
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 341, 302 r/w. 34 – Arms Act – s. 25(1A)
r/w. s.27 – Prosecution case was that PW-2, PW-13 and victim were
going on a motorcycle, on the way, they were stopped by accused
(No.1 to 4) – Accused No.2 and 3 caught hold of victim and accused
No.1 fired on the face of the victim from a very close range – Victim
died instantly – Incident was witnessed by PW-2, 3 & 13 – Trial
Court convicted accused (No.1 to 4) u/s. 341, 302 r/w. 34 IPC and
accused No.1 was also convicted u/s. 25(1A) r/w. s.27 of Arms Act
– Conviction affirmed by the High Court – Accused (No.1 to 3)
preferred appeal – Appellants-accused contended that there were
material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of eye
witnesses PW-2, 3 & 13 – Held: So long as the evidence of eye
witnesses is found credible and trustworthy, their evidence cannot
be doubted on the ground of minor contradictions – In instant case,
PW-2, 3 & 13 had given a consistent and clear account of the
incident – The alleged contradictions in the testimony of the eye
witnesses urged by the appellant are trivial and it does not affect
the case of the prosecution – The contradictions pointed out in the
evidence of PW-2, 3 & 13 were normal discrepancies which are due
to normal errors of observations which, do not effect trustworthiness
of the witnesses.
Evidence – Consistent versions of prosecution witnesses on
the touchstone of medical evidence – Appellant contended that there
were inconsistencies between the evidence of eye witnesses and
medical evidence – Held: The evidence of eye-witnesses are the
eyes and ears of justice – Merely because victim sustained injuries
of different shapes, on the opinionative medical evidence, the
consistent evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be doubted – In instant
case, the inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of eye-witness
inter se and the alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 545
545
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence are minor
contradictions and they do not shake the prosecution case – Thus,
the consistent version of PW-2, 3 and 13 cannot be decided on the
touchstone of medical evidence.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.34 – Common intention – Trial Court
convicted accused (No.1 to 4) u/ss.341, 302/34 IPC – Conviction
affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: If accused Nos. 2
and 3 had shared common intention, they would also had attacked
the victim, but they were only alleged to have caught hold of the
victim – Prosecution did not bring in evidence that there was prior
meeting of minds and that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were having
knowledge that their brother-accused No.1 was armed with Katta –
Thus, conviction of accused Nos. 2 & 3 u/s. 302 r/w s.34 set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. PWs 2, 3 and 13 had given a consistent and clear
account of the incident. All the three eye witnesses have attributed
specific overt act of beating the victim-deceased with lathi to
accused ‘B’, specific overt act of chasing the victim and holding
him by accused No.2 and accused No.3 and the specific overt act
of firing at the victim to accused No.1. Upon consideration of the
evidence of eye witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 13, the trial court found
that the evidence of the eye witnesses is credible and trustworthy.
[Para 13] [554-C-D]
2. Contention of the appellants is that the occurrence was
a blind murder and testimony of the eye witnesses PWs 2, 3 and
13 are not reliable as the same suffers from material contradictions
and inconsistencies. The alleged contradictions in the testimony
of the eye witnesses that are being urged by the appellants are
trivial i.e. with respect to the number of blows given to the victim-
deceased with lathi by accused ‘B’, part of the body where the
bullet was shot and the distance from where accused no.1 fired at
victim etc. Such contradictions pointed out in the evidence of
the three eye witnesses are minor which do not affect the core of
the prosecution case. The discrepancies pointed out in the
evidence of eye witnesses regarding the number of blows, the
distance between appellant-accused no.1 and victim, and the part
of the body of victim where the bullet hit are may be due to normal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
errors of observation narrating theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.