SATYA RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 28-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
SATYA RAJ SINGH
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1314 of 2013)
JANUARY  28, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, 34 – Three accused persons
including the appellant were prosecuted for committing murder of
one ‘B’ – Appellant convicted u/s.302/34, IPC while the other two
accused were acquitted – High Court dismissed the appeal filed by
appellant – Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses proved the
prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of
eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 proved that the appellant assaulted
the deceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti –  PW-5, the
doctor, also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area where
the injuries were sustained by the deceased – There is no
inconsistency or contradiction between the witnesses to disbelieve
their evidence on any material issue – Their testimony being natural
and consistent and without any contradiction as against the version
stated in FIR, deserves to be believed – It is not the function of
Supreme Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point of
fact which did not prevail with the Courts below – Same argument,
which was unsuccessfully urged before the High Court, was again
pressed in service before Supreme Court by the appellant to question
the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence
but having appreciated the submissions, no merit is found in any of
them – High Court was right in repelling these submissions and
upholding the appellant’s conviction – Constitution of India –
Art.136 .
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1.1 It is not the function of this Court to re-assess
evidence and an argument on a point of fact which did not prevail
with the Courts below cannot avail the appellants in this Court.
[Para 20][545-D]
1.2  The same argument, which was unsuccessfully urged
before the High Court, was again pressed in service before this
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 540
540
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
Court by the appellant to question the legality and correctness of
the order of conviction and sentence but having appreciated the
submissions, no merit is found in any of them. The High Court
was right in repelling these submissions and upholding the
appellant’s conviction. [Para 24][546-A-B]
1.3  The evidence of PW-1-, PW-3, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-4
proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. So far as
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned, they actually saw
the incident and stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased
on his neck and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed that
both of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the
assault made by the appellant. PW-4 (in whose house the deceased
was brought in injured condition soon after the incident and where
he died) also saw the condition of the deceased and the nature of
injuries sustained by the deceased.  [Paras 25, 26 and 27][246-
B-D]
1.4 PW-6, being the sister of deceased, rushed to the house
of PW-4 on being informed of the incident where ‘B’ was lying in
an injured condition. She deposed that on seeing her ‘B’ hugged
her and told that the appellant had assaulted him. After some
time, ‘B’ succumbed to his injuries. The evidence of the witnesses
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that assault on the deceased
was made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area.  PW-5,
Dr. ‘RS’ also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area where
the injuries were sustained by the deceased in his post-mortem
report.  No inconsistency or contradictory version between these
witnesses has been noticed which may persuade one to disbelieve
their evidence on any material issue. Their testimony being
natural and consistent and without any contradiction as against
the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to be believed. As
rightly held by the High Court, some minor contradictions here
and there without affecting the substance of their statements could
not be made basis to reject their entire testimony. The incident
in question occurred around 7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas
the FIR was lodged by PW-1 on the next day, i.e., 20.09.1999 at
around 9 a.m.  The Police Station was around 25 KM away from
the place of occurrence. Since ‘B’ died after few hours of the
incident and by that time it was dark night, it was, therefore, not
SATYA RAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
possible for the complainant t

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