PEER SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
     PEER SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2012)
APRIL 09, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.148 and s.149 – Murder –
Fifteen person tried for murder – Prosecution case was that the
victim-deceased was returning to his village on his motor cycle and
was accompanied by two pillion riders, one of them was  PW-8 –
When they came near their village, victim-deceased was attacked
by large number of persons armed with dharia, swords etc. which
resulted in his death – Pillion riders managed to escape and informed
the father of the deceased about the incident, who then, along with
others, reached the spot – On the way, they met PW5 who informed
that he witnessed the incident – Police recorded “Dehati Nalishi”
at the spot wherein the appellants were not named – Conviction of
7 persons including appellants – Appeal against conviction – Held:
The names of the three appellants were absent in the statement of
PW-1 as recorded in court – PW-5 and the three appellants belonged
to the same area and appellants were known to PW-5 – Having
named the other four of the assailants, there was no reason for not
giving names of the other assailants if PW-5 had actually identified
them at the place of occurrence – There was no plausible explanation
given from the side of prosecution as to why the names of the three
accused-appellants were missing both in the “Dehati Nalishi” as
well as in the statement of PW-5 recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C. –
Further, PW-5  again in court did not say that he had identified the
three accused-appellants as the assailants – In view of a grave
doubt with regard to the presence of appellants at the place of
incidence, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt  and are
acquitted.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The “Dehati Nalishi” was recorded on the spot
itself soon after the occurrence.  As per the evidence on record,
PW-5 was present at the spot till 4.00 A.M.  During this time, the
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 549
  549
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
police was there.  It would have been much better if the “Dehati
Nalishi” had been recorded at the instance of PW-5 who was not
only an eye-witness but could even identify some of the accused.
Even if this aspect is overlooked, the fact remains that when the
statement of PW-5 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he
did not name the three appellants.  When the statement was
recorded in court he stated that when the deceased was being
attacked, he (deceased) told the pillion riders to go to his house
and inform that persons of ‘S’ are beating him.  This fact is totally
different from what is recorded in the “Dehati Nalishi”.
[Para 10][553-G-H; 554-A-B]
2.  There is another discrepancy in the statements of PW-1
and PW-5 made in court. The names of the three appellants were
absent even in the statement of PW-1 as recorded in court.  PW-
5 and the three appellants belong to the same area and PW-5  is
known to all the three accused, and when he could name four of
the assailants, there is no reason as to why he could not name
the other assailants if he had actually identified them at the place
of occurrence.  There is no plausible explanation given from the
side of prosecution as to why the names of these three accused-
appellants were missing both in the “Dehati Nalishi” as well as
in the statement of PW-5  recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Further, PW-5  again in court does not say that he had identified
the three accused-appellants as the assailants.  Therefore, a grave
doubt is raised with regard to the presence of these three
accused at the place of incidence.  The benefit of doubt obviously
has to go to the accused-appellants. They are acquitted.
[Para 11, 12][554-B-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 743 of 2012.
With
Crl. A. Nos. 746 and 744 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2011 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of
2001.
U. R. Lalit,  Sushil Kumar Jain, Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs. Puneet
Jain, Harsh Jain, Abhinav Deshwal, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Shailendra Sharma
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
(for Ms. Pratibha Jain), Ehtesham Hashmi, Akbar Siddique, Ms. Pallavi
Pratap, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vaibhav Srivastava, DAG, Chandan Kumar, Pradyuman Kaistha
(for Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi), Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, 

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