RANJEET SINGH @ DARA versus STATE OF MADHYA.PRADESH

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 20-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 986 
RANJEET SINGH @ DARA 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA.PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - Accused found in 
C a room where her step mother was lying dead with incised 
wounds - His clothes were blood stained and he was holding 
blood stained sword in his hand - Courts below arrived at a 
concurrent finding that the circumstances pointed guilt towards 
the appellant - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: 
D There was oral, medical and documentary evidence which 
undoubtedly connected the accused with the murder -
The 
documents on the basis of which defence was raised that the 
real culprit was shielded and appellant was falsely implicated 
were rightly not relied upon by the courts below as the authors 
E of the documents were not examined - No exceptional 
circumstances were pointed out to enable the Supreme Court 
to interfere with the concurrent findings in exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Evidence - Circumstantial 
F evidence. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 -
Scope of 
interference under - Held: The powers of Supreme Court 
under Article 136 are very wide - However, the interference 
with concurrent findings of facts would only be in very 
G exceptional circumstances - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. 
The prosecution case was that the deceased was the 
step mother of the appellant. She used to reside with her 
son, PW-11 on the first floor of the house belonging to 
H 
986 
RANJEET SINGH@ DARA v. STATE OF MADHYA 
987 
PRADESH 
her husband. One of the brother of the appellant was PW-
A 
12 who lived with his family on the ground floor of the 
same house. The appellant resided in Bhopal and was a 
regular visitor to the house of PW-12. On the fateful day, 
B 
the appellant came from Bhopal to Indore in his car and 
parked his car outside the house of PW-12 at around 
11.30 a.m. He met the wife of PW-12 who asked the 
appellant for meal to which he replied that he would have 
meal with PW-12. She then went inside her room. After 
about 10-12 minutes, her maid PW-9 came and told that 
she heard screams coming from the room of the c 
deceased. At about 2.30 p.m., the son of the deceased 
came to the house to take some money from his mother. 
He found that the room was locked from inside. He heard 
the appellant talking on phone and asked him to open the 
door. The appellant refused to open the door. In the 
meanwhile, PW-12 came and he also asked the appellant 
to open the door. The appellant shouted that he would 
open the door only on the arrival of the police. When the 
police arrived, the_appellant opened the door and stated 
that he killed the deceased. He was holding blood stained 
sword in his hand and his clothes were blood stained. 
The trial Court convicted the appellant under section 
302 IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction. 
D 
E 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
F 
appellant that he was falsely implicated and that the real 
culprit was being shielded. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, there was 
G 
no eye-witness account of the murder. The prosecution 
relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence. Both the 
courts below had examined the entire evidence with 
great care and caution and had reached the conclusion 
H 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A that the murder was committed by none other than the 
appellant. The approach of the courts below was in 
consonance with the well established principles, since 
the prosecution case was based only or primarily on 
B 
circumstantial evidence. [Para 11] [995-C-D] 
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR 
1091 ·- relied on. 
Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka (2008) 16 SCC 737; 
Ghurey /al v. State of UP (2008) 10 SCC 450; Abdulwahab 
C Abdulmajid Baloch v. State of Gujrat (2009) 11 SCC 625; 
Budh Singh v. State of UP (2006) 9 SCC 731; Rajeevan v. 
State of Kera/a (2003) 3 SCC 355; Oharamver & ors. v. State 
of U.P (2010) 4 SCC 469; Rabindra Mahto v. State of 
Jharkhand (2006) 10 SCC 432; Aqeel Ahmed v. State of UP 
D (2008) 16 SCC 372 - referred to. 
2. The evidence pointing out a link of the husband 
of the deceased with a crime was the mention of his 
name by PW 10 in the report Ex.P14. This report itself 
E indicated that it was based on the infor

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