IMRAT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1047 · Decided: 24-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
IMRAT SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.480 of 2009)
OCTOBER 24, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss.148 and 302 r/w. s.149 – Conviction under – By courts
below – Relying mainly on two eye-witnesses viz. PW10 and PW11
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There are many material
contractions in the evidence of PW10 and PW11 – There is absence
of examination of many important witnesses – There is a possibility
of concoction of prosecution story – Investigation also does not
seem to be fair – Therefore, conviction by courts below based on
the testimony of the witnesses was not correct – Accused are liable
to be acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  There are many material contradictions in the
statements of the two witnesses i.e. PW10 and PW11. A doubt is
cast that these witnesses are prepared witnesses who have come
out with a parrot like version as far as the incident itself is
concerned but when it comes to the attending circumstances,
their evidence falls apart and does not withstand the scrutiny of
cross-examination. These witnesses have been improving their
statements with the passage of time.  There is also contradiction
in the statement of these two witnesses as to who informed the
villagers about the death of the deceased. [Paras 5, 10] [1050-F;
1052-G]
2. The manner in which the site plan was prepared clearly
indicates that the investigation was not a fair investigation.
[Para 12] [1053-D]
3. The versions of PW15 and that of PW10 are totally
different. This casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story.
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 1047
  1047
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Another factor is that a number of very important witnesses who
should have been examined have not been examined.  [Paras 16,
17] [1054-G; 1055-A]
4.  The FIR  has been recorded admittedly after visiting
the spot by the police and, therefore, there is a possibility that
the story could have been concocted after seeing the site and
conferring with all the villagers. It has come on record that the
deceased was not a very popular man. He had a lot of enemies. It
has also come in evidence that almost all the witnesses have
some criminal antecedents and some cases are pending against
them. It may be true that there was enmity between the two sides.
Enmity, as is often said is a double edged sword. It can be the
motive but it can also be a reason to falsely implicate the other
side. In the present case, keeping in view the various
contradictions and the fact that in view of the contradictions it is
difficult to rely upon the statements of PW-10 and PW-11 as well
as PW-6 and PW-7, a doubt has been cast and the benefit of doubt
has to be given to the accused. The High Court and the Trial
Court did not take into consideration these contradictions of the
witnesses and relied upon the witnesses especially PW-10 and
PW-11 without referring to the attending circumstances.
[Paras 18 and 19] [1055-C-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.480 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated  24.10.2008 of the High
Court  of  Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1995
Shikhil Suri, Adv. (A.C.)
Ms. June Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jameel
Husain,  Ms. Shilpa Saini, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya
Satyam, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUTPA, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the
judgment dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the High Court upheld the judgment
of the Sessions Judge, Datia dated 30.03.1995 convicting the appellants
of having committing offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302
read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants were sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder and two years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.
They were also directed to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of
payment of fine further three years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Shortly stated the prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR is
that on 25.05.1994 at about 2 pm., Lakhan Singh (PW-10) and Ram
Singh (PW-11), who were coming from village Baron Kalan to village
Kotra, saw the accused persons beat

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