MADHAV versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 18-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
MADHAV
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2021)
AUGUST 18, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution
case that three accused, A1, A2 and A3 in furtherance of common
intention, attacked, brother of A1 with weapons, resulting in his
death – A2 took victim to the hospital and sent information to the
police that the assault was committed by PW 6 and 7 – Conviction
and sentence of A1, A2 and A3 u/s. 302 rw s. 34 by the courts
below – Appeal by A2 and A3 before this Court – Held: Right from
the beginning there was an attempt on the part of the prosecution to
shield the culprits named in the first FIR, on account of political
pressure, as admitted by the IO and corroborated by the main witness
– IO carried out the investigation with the intention to turn the
informant and her family members as the accused and allow the
real culprits named in the FIR to escape – Admissions on the part of
the main witness made the prosecution case completely untrustworthy
– Prosecution witness who allegedly witnessed the seizure turned
hostile – Courts below overlooked the important admissions made
by the IO and the main witness – They did not take into account the
normal human conduct – There was failure on the part of the
prosecution to establish that the blood stains contained on the knife
and lathis were that of the deceased – Furthermore, it is unbelievable
that the three accused (A-1, 2 and 3) caused the death of the victim
due to his failure to return Rs.250/-, due and payable to a third
person (PW-7) and that thereafter, they deliberately named PW-7 as
the accused – Thus, order of conviction of A2 and A3 by the courts
below, set aside –  Since the story of the prosecution has been
disbelieved in entirety, to deny the benefit of the said conclusion to
A1 merely on ground of a technicality that he is not on appeal would
be unjustified – Conviction of A12 also set aside.
Criminal law: Alibi – Plea of – Effect on investigation – Held:
At times persons committing a crime, themselves lodge the first
information, to create an alibi of innocence – However, in such
cases the investigation would normally proceed first against those
named as accused in the FIR and, thereafter, the suspicion may
turn against the informant himself.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 451
451
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Constitution of India: Art. 142 – Power under – Scope of –
Benefit of the instant appeal to co-accused who has not come up on
appeal – Denial of – Held: Denial of the benefit of the conclusion
of the matter in the appeal, to the said co-accused merely on the
ground of a technicality that he is not on appeal would be gross
injustice, when this Court is empowered u/Art. 142 to do complete
justice – On facts, this Court has not proceeded on the basis of
individual overt acts on the part of accused in appeal, to conclude
that they are entitled to acquittal – Thus, conviction and sentence
of the co-accused also set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is quite strange and completely unfathomable
as to how, where, why and at what point of time, the investigation
that should have started against PWs 6 and 7 took a U-turn and
proceeded towards the very informant and her family members.
Right from the beginning, the defence taken by the accused was
that due to political influence, they were made accused and the
actual accused were made witnesses. This stands corroborated
by the admission made by PW-14 (IO) that when he took up the
investigation on 14.05.2008, there were demonstrations held by
political parties. What is shocking is the admission made by PW-
14 during cross-examination that he was not aware, at the time
when he started the investigation in the morning, whether the
accused named in the FIR, namely, PWs 6 and 7 were in police
custody. But he admitted that after he took up investigation, he
did not arrest both of them. The reason why the IO did not even
suspect the role of PWs 6 and 7 in the commission of the crime,
remains unexplained. This Court is conscious of the fact that at
times persons who commit a crime, themselves make/lodge the
first information, so as to create an alibi of innocence. But even
in such cases the investigation would normally proceed first
against those named as accused in the FIR and, thereafter, the
needle of suspicion may turn against the informant himself. [Para
15, 16, 17][460-G-H; 461-A-

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