PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 19-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 282 
'" 
A. 
PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 146-147 of 2008) 
B 
JULY 19, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 307 rlw s.149 - Death 
of one person and grievous injury to another - Five accused, 
c viz. 'R', 'B', 'D', 'H' and 'P' - Allegation that 'B' fired a shot 
causing severe injury on the head of PW-2 while 'R' fired a 
shot at PW-2's relative which hit him on the abdominal area 
killing him instantaneously -
Trial Court convicted all the 
accused under ss.302 and 307 rlw s.149- They filed appeal, 
D during pendency of which, 'B' died - High Court dismissed 
the appeal - On further appeal by P', 'D' 'H' and 'R', held: 
Evidence of PW-5 was wholly reliable - The very spontaneity 
of the FIR indicated that PW-5 was present at the murder site 
- Likewise PW-6 who had arranged a tractor to take PW-2 to 
E the police station clearly supported the view that PW-5 had 
been present at the site and the two had carried the injured 
to the hospital - PW-2 too supported the prosecution to the 
extent that he admitted the presence of PW-5 at the time of 
incident -
The medical evidence also supported the eye-
F witnesses account - 'B' and 'R' were both armed with muzzle 
loading 12 bore shotguns which could have caused the 
injuries found on the person of the deceased as well as on 
PW-2 - 'P', 'H' and 'D' were armed with lathis which had not 
been used by them in any manner and the only a/legation 
G against them is that they had exhorted their co-accused to fire 
•
at the opposite party -
The possibility that these three 
accused were roped in, on account of animosity cannot be 
ruled out and they must be given the benefit of doubt on that 
score - Conviction of 'R' upheld whereas conviction of P' 'D' 
H 
and 'H' set aside. 
' 
282 
PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 
283 
; _.; 
I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 146-147 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2007 of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 2886 
& 3027 of 1998. 
B 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 1180 of 2008. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Dr. V.P. Appan, Vibha Datta Makhija 
for the appearing parties. 
c 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
This Order will dispose of all the above appeals as they 
D 
arise from a common judgment. 
The facts of the case are as under: 
At 12.50 p.m. on the 30th September, 1996 as the 
deceased Ganeshram accompanied by his relative Annilal 
E 
(PW.2) and his son Chandan Singh (PW.5) were about to cross 
the Narmada river on a boat, the five accused, Rammilan Lodhi 
and Babula! Lodhi, both armed with shot guns, and Dullam, 
Hukum and Prahlad armed with lathis came out of a bush. On 
seeing Ganeshram and the others Prahlad, Hukum and Dullam 
F 
exhorted Rammilan and Babulal to fire at Ganeshram. On this 
exhortation Rammilan first fired a shot at Ganeshram which hit 
him on the abdominal area killing him instantaneously and a 
' 
shot fired by Babulal caused a severe injury on the head of 
-
' 
Annilal (PW.2), Chandan Singh (PW.5) who was behind them 
G 
/ 
at some distance answering the call of nature witnessed the 
entire incident. He rushed to the spot and first removed the 
injured Annilal (PW.2)to the village and thereafter conveyed the 
information about the incident to PW.6 Saheb Singh - his 
brother. He also arranged for a tractor on which Annilal was 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A carried to the hospital at Narsinghpur about 20 k.m. away and 
the first information report was lodged in the police station 
Narsinghpur at about 2.30 p.m. The Investigating Officer 
thereafter reached the place of incident and made the 
necessary inquiries and also sent the dead body for its post-
s mortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed 
a large number of pellet injuries on the person of the deceased. 
Rammilan was also arrested and on his disclosure statement 
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act a muzzle loading shot 
gun was seized along with pellets, gun powder and brass metal 
c caps. 
During the course of the trial Annilal(PW.2) did not support 
the prosecution as he was equally related to the complainant 
as well as the accused party. The prosecution accordingly 
relied on the statement of PW.5-Chandan Singh and PW.6-
D Saheb Singh, as also the medical evidence. The Trial Court 
however found that the evidence of PW.2 partly supported the 
oth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.