PARVAT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 02-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
5
PARVAT SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2020)
MARCH 02, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w s. 149 – Murder – All the
accused including the appellants came to be tried by the Trial Court
for the offences u/s. 302 r/w. s. 149 of the IPC for having killed son
of the informant-PW-8 – The Trial Court convicted appellants-
original accused nos. 2 to 5 for the offences punishable u/s. 302 r/
w. s. 149 of the IPC – The High court confirmed the conviction of
the appellants – Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended
that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that so
far as the evidence/ deposition of PW-8 is concerned, it is full of
material contradiction and improvements – Held: PW-8 stated in
her statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. that he had seen all the
accused in the light of the torch – she stated that the accused no. 1
was having axe and other four accused were armed with lathis –
She also stated that accused no. 1 gave the axe blow on the neck of
the deceased due to the enmity and earlier dispute and other accused
were telling to run immediately – However, in her deposition, PW-8
stated that two accused persons caught hold of deceased – She
stated in her deposition that there was chimney light in the cattle
shed and accused ran away from the nearby agricultural field of
sugarcane – Therefore, the deposition of PW-8 is full of material
contradictions and improvements so far as original accused nos. 2
to 5 are concerned – No other independent witness, even named by
PW-8 supported the case of prosecution – In her deposition, she
has not stated anything that the appellants were having lathis – As
per the settled proposition of law, the statement recorded u/s 161
Cr. P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions
– Further, according to PW-8, she identified the accused in the light
of the torch, however, there is no recovery of torch – In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there are material contradictions,
omissions and/or improvements so far as the appellants are
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 964
964
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
965
concerned – Therefore, the benefit of material contradictions,
omissions and improvements must go in favour of the appellants –
The conviction of the appellants u/s. 302 r/w. s. 149 of the IPC set
aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It is required to be noted that it was a black night
(Amavasya) at the time of incident. It was a dark night as the
incident has happened between 4-5 a.m. PW8 in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she has seen
all the accused in the light of the torch. She has stated that original
accused no.1 was having an axe and other four were armed with
lathis. She had also stated in her statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. that original accused no.1 gave the axe blow on the neck
of the deceased due to the enmity and earlier dispute and other
accused were telling to run away immediately and thereafter all
the five accused ran away from behind the cattle shed/house. She
stated that she had identified all the accused in the light of the
torch and also by voice. According to her after she shouted, other
persons came. However, there is material improvement in her
deposition before the Court. In her deposition, she has stated
that the two accused caught hold of deceased. In her deposition,
she has also stated that there was a chimney light in the cattle
shed. She has also stated in her deposition that the accused ran
away from the nearby agricultural field of sugarcane. Therefore,
the deposition of PW8 is full of material contradictions and
improvements so far as original accused Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned.
It is required to be noted that no other independent witness even
named by PW8 has supported the case of the prosecution. Though,
according to PW8, she identified the accused in the light of the
torch, there is no recovery of torch. There is material
improvement so far as the chimney light is concerned. In her
deposition, she has not stated anything that the appellants –
original accused nos. 2 to 5 were having the lathis, though she
has stated this in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
High Court has observed relying upon her statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the appellants herein – accused
nos. 2 to 5 were having lathis. However, as per the settled
preposition 

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