SAJJAN SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 02-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SA.HAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND D.P. WADHWA, .TJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 392. 
Offence--Conviction or acquittal-Appeal against-Both the Judges of 
the Division Bench of the High Cowt were ill agreement with the conviction 
of some of the accused person:r-There was difference of opinion i11 respect 
of the remai11ing-Hence, matter refeJTed to third Judge-Held, third Judge not 
bound by the opinio11 of the two Judges where there is 110 difference-171ird 
D Judge is required to consider whole of the case i11dependently--Crimi11al 
Procedure Code, 1898, S. 429--constitutio11 of I11dia, 195(}-Arts. 136 and 
134. 
E 
Criminal Trial : 
Wit11ess-Eyewit11es:r-Testimo11y of-Co11tradiction in-Appreciation 
of evidence-....Principles of-Enmity between accused and deceased-Held : 
Possibility off alse implication cannot be ruled 011f-171ercfore, to appreciate 
the evidence of witnesses whole scene has to be reconstmcted on the basis of 
statements of witmsses to ascertain the truthful11es:r-Pe11al Code, 1860, S. 
F 302. 
The appellants along with seven accused persons were convicted by 
the trial court for offence under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860 
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, the Judges of 
the Division Bench of the High Court were divided in their opinion. The 
G Judges agreed with the conviction of three of the appellants but differed 
as regards the other seven. Hence the matter was referred to a third Judge 
under Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Third Judge 
did not examine the appeals of the three appellants whose conviction was 
unanimously upheld by the two Judges of the Division Bench as he felt that 
H he was bound by such an unanimous opinion. Ultimately, the third Judge 
316 
-
S. SINGH v. STATE 
317 
convicted six persons and acquitted the remaining four persons. Hence A 
this appeal. 
According to the prosecution the appellants and the deceased had 
previous enmity regarding the purchase of a land. A day before the incident 
one of the accused persons had come fo the house of one P and left a 
message ~ith his brother to send P and the deceased to the village to settle 
their dispute. Accordingly, P_ and the deceased came to the village on two 
scooters each with a pillion rider, P following the deceased at a little 
distance. As soon as the scooter of the deceased reached near the field of 
B 
the appellants, the deceased was sif,,'Ilalled to stop his scooter. The pillion 
rider of the deceased fled from the scene. The appellants then started C 
beating the deceased with swords, pharsa and latl1is (sticks) on his head 
and body as a result of which the deceased fell dead. P saw the incident 
for some time before he turned away his scooter along with the pillion 
rider. While witnessing the incident, the engine of the scooter was running, 
and P and his pillion rider were able to identify one of the appellants from 
~~~ 
D 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. Statement of law is now quite explicit. It is the third Judge 
whose opinion matters; against the judgment that follows therefrom that 
an appeal lies to this Court by way of special leave petition under Article 
136 of the Constitution or under Article 134 of the Constitution or under 
Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Third Judge is, 
therefore, required to examine whole of the case independently and it 
cannot be said that he is bound by that part of the two opinions of the two 
Judges comprising the Division Bench where there is no difference. As a 
matter off act third Judge is not bound by any such opinion of the Division 
Bench. He is not hearing the matter as if he is sitting in a three-Judge 
Bench where the opinion of majority would prevail. Hence, the third was 
E 
F 
not right in his approach and his hands were not tied as far as the three 
appellants before him were concerned in respect of whom both the Judges G 
of the Division Bench opined that they were guilty and their conviction and 
sentences were to be upheld. [328-A-C] 
Babu v. State of U.P., AIR (1965) SC 1467, followed. 
Hetl1uba v. State of Gujarat, [1970) 1 SCC 720; U11io11 of India v. B.N. H 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A Ananti Padmanabiah, [1971] 3 SCC 278; State of A.P. v. P. T Appaiah, 
[1980] 4 SCC 316; Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1972) SC 1502; 
State of U.P. v. D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.