KHILAN & ANR versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 09-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 220 
KHILAN & ANR 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2007) 
MARCH 9, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Conviction under - Eight 
accused persons armed with deadly weapons forming unlawful 
C assembly to kill deceased - Infliction of fatal injuries on 
deceased - Conviction and sentence of four accused u/s. 
302134 - Upheld by High Court but acquittal of one of the 
accused - On appeal held: There is no infirmity either in the 
appreciation of evidence or apparent miscarriage of justice 
D - Thus, order of conviction of three accused by courts below 
does not call for interference - Presence and participation of 
the accused acquitted by High Court in the crime doubtful, 
thus, order of High Court in that regard upheld - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
E 
According to the prosecution case, there was a land 
dispute between the parties. P, K, G, SS, D, KR, GL and 
8 armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful 
assembly and caused fatal injuries to TS. PR-PW2 and 
F SB were the eye witness to the assault. The trial court 
convicted P, GL, K and SS u/s.302134 IPC and sentenced 
to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the 
conviction and sentence of P, K and GL but acquitted SS. 
Hence, the present cross appeals were filed. This Court 
G by order dated 16.2.2010 dismissed the appeals. 
H 
Now· giving reasons for dismissing the appeals, the 
Court 
220 
KHILAN & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 
221 
HELD: 
A 
Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2007: 
1.1. The trial court concluded that the four accused 
namely P, K, G and SS had inflicted the fatal injuries on 
the deceased. It was upon the thorough consideration of 8 
the evidence that the trial court rendered its verdict. [Para 
15] (230-E-F] 
1.2. In appeal the High Court re-appreciated the entire 
evidence, even more elaborately. The High Court had c 
independently reached its conclusions. It is noticed that 
the" medical evidence given by the doctor clearly shows 
that the deceased had suffered five incised injuries. The 
injuries resulted in the instantaneous death of TS. The 
High Court reiterates the reason for disbelieving the o 
testimony of SB. On examination of the evidence given 
by PW 2-PR it is noticed that PW2 had merely stated that 
his Mama goes to the fields in the morning after taking 
tea. He usually comes back to take lunch in the afternoon. 
The witness never stated that on that particular date also 
E. 
the deceased had only taken tea. No clarification with 
regard to this was sought from the doctor by either par_ty. 
F 
In any event this single factor would not be sufficient to 
falsify the evidence led by the prosecution. The High 
Court also discarded the evidence of SB on the ground 
that the identity of B has not been established. There was 
only one injury on the deceased which could have been 
caused by a blunt weapon. SB had insisted that B had 
assaulted the deceased with the lathi. The High Court 
also came to the conclusion that merely because the . G 
witnesses had been closely related to the deceased and 
there is enmity between the families is no reason to 
discard the evidence which is consistent and is 
corroborated. The weapons were recovered at the 
instance of the appellant. It is also _concluded that TS had 
died due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries which 
H 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 3 S.C.R. 
A were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of 
nature. The said conclusion is also buttressed by the 
circumstance that TS died immediately upon the injuries 
being inflicted. Therefore, the High Court had endorsed 
the approach of the trial court. Upon a close examination 
B of the evidence of PW2, the High Court came to a 
conclusion that the presence and participation of SS in 
the crime was doubtful. It is observed that although the 
evidence of PW2 and PW4-SL is consistent with regard 
to the role played and the weapons used by P, G and K. 
c However it suffers from material discrepancies/ 
inconsistencies in relation to the role played and the 
weapons used by SS. It is observed that tfle statement 
of P is inconsistent with his statement during 
investigation u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. In the report as well as in 
0 
his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that SS was 
carrying luhangi. However, in his statement he changed 
his version and stated that he was carrying and used 
farsa. This apart during investigation l

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