RAMBILAS AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 03-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMBILAS AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
OCTOBER 3, 1997 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, I860-Section 302-Accused prosecuted for murder 
of a notorious character-Prosecution case based on evidence of four eye 
witnesses-Occurrence allegedly in late evening-Festival being celebrated C 
in village where villagers dance and drink through out the night-Eye 
witnesses claimed having been woken up with noise of beating with sticks 
and went towards place of occurrence-During cross examination admitted 
not to have seen actual assault on deceased by appellants-Father of 
deceased informed and FIR lodged only next morning-Dead body discovered 
later at instance of accused-Held-Courts below erred in convicting D 
accused-Evidence of eye witnesses identical including omissions, 
contradictions and improvements-Evidence not corroborated by medical 
evidence-Evidence of eye witnesses improbable and unbelievable-Evidence 
indicates blind murder-Absence of motive for eye witnesses to implicate 
accused does not by itself make evidence credible-Mere recovery of E 
incriminating articles at the instance of accused cannot form basis of 
conviction. 
Constitution of India, I950-Article 136-Jurisdiction·-Held-
Ordinarily Supreme Court does not interfere with findings of facts or re-
appreciate evidence-However in the instant case well known principles of p 
appreciation of evidence totally ignored by Courts below-concurrent findings 
of courts below reversed-Conviction set aside . 
. 
The Appellants were accused under Section 302 and 201 IPC for murder 
of deceased, a notorious person, addicted to liquor and a womanizer. At the 
relevant time, deceased was staying with accused, A-5 with whose wife he had G 
eloped for a short period. According to prosecution case, occurrence took 
place late in the evening when a festival was being celebrated in the village 
on which occasion villagers dance and drink during the night. At about 10.30. 
p.m. some villagers, namely four eyewitnesses, woke up because of noise of 
marpeet with sticks and went towards place of occurrence. They saw the actual 
405 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A marpeet apd were told by the appellants that the deceased had been killed, but 
they were threatened from going near the place of marpeet and returned since 
they were unarmed. They claimed that they alongwith other villagers had 
returned to the place of occurrence subsequently and inspite of searching 
through out the night, they did not see the accused or the body of the deceased. 
B They informed the father of deceased about the incident only the next morning 
and an FIR was lodged. During interrogation, statement of A-2 led to discovery 
of dead body from a tank. Disclosure statement of other accused led to recovery 
of other incriminating articles. 
The Session Court and the High Court held all the appellants to be 
C guilty and convicted them under Sections 302 and 20 IPC for life on first 
count and two years RI on second count. The present appeals were filed by 
the convicts through jail. 
Allowing the Appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Supreme Court would ordinarily not to interfere with finding 
D of fact, based on appreciation of evidence by courts below. However, in the 
instant c:i.se, since the courts below have mechanically read evidence of eye 
witnesses and totally ignored well known principle of appreciation of evidence, 
the concurrent judgments of courts below and the convictions of appellants 
cannot be sustained. [409-B] 
E 
1.2. The courts below have committed an error while convicting the 
Appellant under Section 302 and 201 IPC. They have failed to read the 
evidence of the witnesses in a proper perspective and have erred in accepting 
their evidence as credible and truthful. [410-F] 
p 
2.1. The evidence of the four main eye witnesses is identical, including 
the omissions, contradictions and the improvements. A comparison of their 
evidence indicates that they repeated what was taught. Even the talk between 
the four eye witnesses and the appellants was identical. Their evidence is 
improbable. [409-C) 
G 
2.2. The claim of the four eye witnesses that they had gone to the place 
of occurrence is totally unbelievable. Inspite of a festival being celebrated, 
the witnesses claimed to have been woken up by the noise of marpeet by sticks. 
During cross-examination they admitted that they did not see the actual assault 
by the Appella

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