MAGAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1047 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

s 
,A 
MAGAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
APRIL 10, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 323: 
Murder-Accused persons attacked deceased and another-'-Accused 
allegedly shot an arrow which pierced the chest of deceased-Deceased C 
succumbed to injuries-Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of 
committing murder of the deceased and causing voluntary hurt to his brother 
and sentenced them accordingly-High Court setting aside conviction against 
all the accused persons except appellant and another, affirmed conviction 
and sentence against the accused-appellant-On appeal, Held: Motive of D 
committing the crime has categorically been disclosed not only in FIR but 
also in the deposition of prosecution witnesses-Presence of prosecution 
witnesses at the place of occurrence not doubtful-Since deposition of 
witnesses made after lapse of four years from the incident, some variation in 
their statement cannot be ruled out-A plea of right to self defence raised for 
the first time and it was not specifically raised before the trial Court-No E 
reasons/explanations furnished as to the circumstances-None of the accused 
persons suffered injuries so as to justify accused exercising their right to 
private defence-Under the circumstances, both the Courts below rightly 
found accused guilty of offence punishable u/s. 302 !PC-Evidence Act, 
1872-Evidence of witnesses-Evidentiary value. 
F 
On the fateful day, when the deceased along with his brother PW-2 and 
other persons were in their respective hutments, the accused persons 
including appellant came there and started shouting, on hearing of which 
deceased, his brother and others came out of their houses. Appellant was 
carrying a bow and arrows and other accused persons were having stones in G 
their hands. Accused-appellant bore a grudge against the deceased since he 
made a complaint against the appellant in regard to cutting ofMahua tree 
before the Forest Rangers. Appellant shot an arrow which pierced the left 
side of the chest of the deceased. PW-2 and other witnesses tried to intervene, 
1047 
H 
1048 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
A whereupon other accused persons started pelting stones .towards them. On 
receipt of injuries, the deceased tried to run away·from the scene of 
occurrence, however, after going a few steps he fell down. He was brought to 
the hut and after some time he succumbed to the injuries. First Information 
Report was lodged by PW-2, and Police, after completing the investigation, 
submitted the charge-sheet During trial, seven witnesses were examined on 
B behalf of the prosecution. The Trial Court upon considering the materials 
brought on record found all the accused persons guilty of committing the 
offences of murder of the deceased and causing voluntary hurt to PW-2, and 
accordingly convicted them for committing offences punishable u/ss. 148, 302/ 
149, 323/149 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. An appeal was preferred 
C thereagainst by all the accused persons. The High Court opined that the 
appellants therein were not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections, 
148, 302/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. High Court, while setting aside the 
conviction against all the convicts except the appellant, affirmed the conviction 
and sentence against the accused-appellant only. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Accused-appellant contended that the Trial Court and consequently the 
High Court failed to notice the fact that the litigations were pending between 
the parties and, thus, no reliance should have been,placed upon the evidences 
of the prosecution witnesses and in particular PW-2; and that although PW-
2 made a statement before the Court that two other eye-witnesses, they were 
E not named in the First Information Report 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. 1. The motive on the part of Appellant in committing the crime 
has categorically been disclosed not only in the First Information Report, but 
F also in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and in particular PWs-2 
and 6. If the place where the occurrence took place is not in question, there 
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the residents of the neighbouring huts 
would either see the occurrence or come out immediately thereafter. As the 
occurrence took place at about 6.00 p.m., presence of the prosecution witnesses 
cannot be doubted. It may be that a litigation in regard to theft of a buffalo was 
G pending

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