RANJIT SINGH versus STATE OF M. P.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 03-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RANflTSINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M. P. 
APRIL 03, 2007 
[S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under-Sustainability a/-
Assault by weapons by accused, leading to death of two-FIR lodged within 
short time-Specific overt acts alleged on part of the accused-Attribution C 
of motive to accused-Prosecution case proved by evidence of witnesses who 
were family members of deceased-Thus, order of conviction sustainable. 
According to the prosecution case, on account of enmity between the 
parties, at mid night appellant and his father assaulted B with weapons. R, 
cousin of B who came out to protect B, was also assaulted. Both B and R died D 
on the spot. FIR was lodged. Accused persons were tried for offence under 
sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. Trial Court examined the first informant, 
his wife, Sand wife ofR as eye witnesses and held that the appellant along 
with S and J had committed the offence. During pendency of trial, S and J 
died. Appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC. High 
Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no reason to differ with the fmdings of the Trial Judge 
as also the High Court. The prosecution has been able to prove its case by 
bringing on record the evidence of at least three eye witnesses, who are the F 
members of the family of the deceased, thus, there is no merit in the instant 
appeal. [Paras 9 and 10) [763-C-F-G) 
2.1. It is evident from the record that FIR was lodged within a very short 
time by PW-3. Indisputably, in the said FIR, the appellant, amongst others, G 
had been named. Specific overt acts on his part had been alleged. Even the 
motive had been attributed. Even otherwise, utterances of the appellant, his 
father and other accused persons on the reason for commission of the crime 
clearly go to show that the motive for commission of the said offence was that 
759 
H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A against the wishes of appellant with whom 'Sagai' ceremony of S categorically 
~ 
stated even in his examination-in-chief that as his eye-sight had become weak, 
he could not recognize them. Therefore, his evidence could not be shattered. 
(Para 6] (762-E-H] 
.. 
B 
2.2. The evidence of P. W. 4, wife of first informant must be read in its 
entirely. She had categorically stated that she had heard accused no. 1 uttering 
the words, 'come out'. Even otherwise, it is evident from her st?tement as also 
the statement of P.W.3 that while knocking at the door, accused no. 1 
'\ 
identified him in response whereto only the door was opened. She, in her 
deposition, clearly stated that she had seen the accused killing B and R, but 
,.-
c she added that only after becoming unconscious she did not see anything 
thereafter. [Para 7 and 8) (763-A-C) 
2.3. Shad not only proved the motive; she gave a detailed account of the 
entire incident. She knew the appellant from before. She accepted that her 
'Sagai' ceremony with appellant had been performed. Except in regard to the 
D time of occurrence, her statement remained unchallenged. The man'ner in 
which the two persons had been killed found sufficient support from the post 
mortem reports. The ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the deceased 
.,, 
support the prosecution case. (Para 9) (763-D-F) 
.....-
E 2006. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24:06.2005 of the High Court of 
·Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 611 of2000. 
Javed Mahmud Rao for the Appellant. 
F 
D.K. Singh, Dr. Indra Prakash Singh and C.D. Singh for the Respondent. 
~ 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Delay condoned. 
G 
2. On 09th October J 994 at about .30 a.m., a First Information Report 
(FIR) was lodged by one Nagu, father of one of the deceased Bhanwar Lal 
and the cousin of the second deceased Ram Lal, befure the o:ficer-in-charge 
of Maksi Police Station in relation to an incident which had taken place at 
~- ~
village Merukheri at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. on the said date. The prosecution 
H case appears to be that 'Sagai' ceremony had been performed for marriage of 
,) 
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF M. P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
761 
the appellant herein with Sitabai, P. W. i 6. However, her father refused to A 
solemnize the said marriage as he had learnt that Ranjit was already married. 
Sitabai was married to Bhanwa

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