LexMAUKAM SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 336 : 2025 INSC 435 Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2025) 02 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused u/s.302/34 and ss.323 and 324 rw s.34 IPC justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323, 324, 34 – Murder – Ocular evidence – Animosity between the accused and the victims regarding the ownership of the place of worship – Accused persons-appellants armed with deadly weapons came to the house of the victim-grandfather, questioned them resulting in a scuffle which lead to the death of the victim and injuries to grandchildren – Appellants convicted u/ss.302/34, 323 and 324 rw s.34 for homicide and for injuries sustained by grandchildren and sentenced accordingly – High Court upheld the same – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Merely because witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to be interested – Ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of the deceased which would not result in eschewing their testimony – All the ocular witnesses were injured which makes their testimony credible and believable – Also nothing suspicious to doubt the veracity of the ocular witnesses – Furthermore, the facts regarding the fight and the overt acts does not make it an offence covered u/s.304 Part II nor fall under any of the Exceptions to s.300 resulting in a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Medical evidence that the injury could be caused either manually by a hard and blunt object or by an accidental fall, does not detract from the finding u/s.302, especially considering the ocular testimony – Intention is clear from the deadly nature of * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 337 Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh the weapons carried by the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims, one of whom died – Evidence. [Paras 5, 6, 13, 14] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Ocular evidence; Interested witness; Motive of enmity is double edged weapon; Relationship between witnesses and deceased; Reverse hit by axe; Medical evidence; Deadly nature of weapons; Injured witnesses; Ocular testimony; Intention; Aggressors; Grievous injuries. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2018 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in CRLA No. 155 of 2000 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Vikrant Singh Bais, Ms. Neema, Yogesh Tiwari. Advs. for the Respondent: D. S. Parmar, A.A.G., Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Surjeet Singh, Chanakya Baruah, Ms. Saloni, Rohan Singla. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K. Vinod Chandran, J. Leave granted. 2. Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in a disputed land, carried out by one of the injured; the accused, on the instigation of the person who was is possession of the land, reached the house 338 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of the deceased with weapons and questioned them resulting in a scuffle ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to the three grandchildren; as per the story of the prosecution. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the appellants herein were charged with offences under Sections 302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code1. Two were charged under Sections 324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34; who were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted under Sections 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, for the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed. 3. On appeal before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais argued that there was no premeditation and no intention to cause death;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.