CHETU & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
~ 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1038 
I 
" 
A 
CHETU & ANR. 
.._ 
~ 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
r' • 
'I--
(Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2007) 
B 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 302 and 342 - Wrongful confinement and murder'--
1,._ 
c Close relative of accused found dead in his house - Portion 
.__ 
'----
of house burnt - FIR against accused, father and sons, that 
: 
during an altercation they, armed with an axe and 'lathies' 
assaulted the victim and locked him in the house - Police 
" 
recovered his dead body from the house - Conviction by trial · 
D court affirmed by High Court - Jail appeal by accused sons 
" 
- HELD: All 'panch' witnesses and informant were declared 
hostile - Contents of FIR not proved-:- Eye witnesses relied 
.. : 
upon by courts did not state to have seen actual incident -
Prosecution version not supported by medical evidence -
r 
E Despite clear discrepancies in evidence of so-called eye-
witnesses, High Court committed serious error in holding that 
1:~
as the defence case could not be established, prosecution . 
;.-.
must be held to have proved its case - Judgment of High 
Court set aside - Accused-appellants acquitted. 
F 
The appellants and their father were prosecuted for 
commission of offences punishable u/ss 436, 302 and 342 
IPC on the allegations that on an altercation having taken 
l 
place between the informant's father on the one side and 
three accused on the other, the latter armed with 'lathis' 
and axe assaulted the former and locked him in a room; 
G that the portion of the house in which the informant (PW-
3) and his father were living was set on fire by the father 
of the-.appellants as a result of which the house was 
burnt. PW-3 was said to have lodged the FIR whereupon 
,. 
the police procured the key from the mother of the 
< 
H 
1038 
, /. 
CHETU & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
1039 
appellants and recovered the dead body of the father of A 
PW-3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the 
• "!-I 
accused u/ss 302 and 342 IPC. The High Court having 
dismissed the appeal, the jail appeal of the appellants was 
filed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD:1.1. PW-3, the informant, in his evidence before 
the trial court denied and disputed that he had made any 
-f 
statement in the first information report, the manner in 
which the deceased was said to have been assaulted by 
the accused. This witness was declared hostile. The c 
-
Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination although 
proved signature of PW-3 on the first information report 
but the contents therein were not proved. (Para 9 and 1 O] 
(1042-G-H; 1043-A] 
1.2. PW-6 on whose evidence the trial court relied, did 
D 
not see the actual occurrence. Evidence of this witness 
' 
could not have been relied upon because, firstly, he did 
~ 
'"' 
not see the occurrence and, secondly, there was no 
reason as to why the police did not record his statement. 
Enmity between him and the accused was also proved. 
E 
PW-7, like PW-6, was also ill and had been staying in his 
house. He has stated to have seen the accused taking 
the dead body of the deceased into their house. After 
seeing this, he hid himself in his room. Both these 
witnesses did not disclose about their being a witness 
F 
of the occurrence to any body. [Para 11 and 12] [1043-G-
. ' 
H; 1044-A-C] 
1.3. As per the medical evidence, a large number of 
injuries were found on the person of the deceased, but 
. there was no injury on the vital part of the body. No injury 
G 
was found which could have been caused by any hard 
and blunt substance. A pointed wound was found which 
~ 
could not have been caused either by lathi or axe which 
are said to have been used for the commission of crime. 
-
Most of the wounds were bluish. All panch witnesses 
were declared hostile. [Para 13] [1044-E-F] 
H 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
·""' 
A 
1.4. The accused and the deceased being closely 
related had a common boundary between their houses 
which are situated side by side. It is wholly unlikely that 
't- )'". 
they would put fire to their own house. [Para 14] (1044-
G-H; 1045-A] 
B 
1.5. The approach of the trial court as also the High 
Court ca,nnot be appreciated .. Despite the clear 
discrepanc·ies in the evidence of so-called eye-witnesses, 
the High Court committed a serious error in holding that 
-Y (:" 
as the defence could not prove its case, the prosecution 
c must be held to have proved its ca

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