SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 07-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 169 
SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1466 of 2012) 
JULY 7, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder - FIR registered 11 months after 
'Marg' investigation - Accused named in FIR - Conviction of 
all the three accused-appellants by trial court -- Affirmed by 
High Court - Held: Out of five witnesses of occurrence, two 
including an independent witness did not support prosecution 
case and they were declared hostile - Two of the remaining 
witnesses are brothers and uncle of deceased - One of them 
was not examined in 'Marg' investigation -- Testimonies of the 
other two are at variance from their statements recorded 
during 'Marg" investigation - Their testimonies do not inspire 
confidence and their conduct belies their version - Evidence 
on record coupled with infirmities in investigation indicate that 
prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of 
appellants beyond reasonable doubt - Appellants are entitled 
to benefit of doubt and, as such, are acquitted. 
INVEST/GA TION: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Infirmities [n investigation - Held: In 'Marg' investigation 
name of culprits not ascertained - A. S. /. who registered 'Marg' 
intimation, not examined - 'Marg' Intimation Report neither G 
exhibited, nor proved - FIR registered after 11 months and 
only thereafter during investigation statements of witnesses 
were recorded who stated to have seen the accused attacking 
the deceased - 10 who conducted part investigation, did not 
169 
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
testify in trial - Investigation in the case is slip-shod. 
Appellants A-1 to A-3 were prosecuted for 
commission of the offence punishable uls 302 read with 
s. 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that at about 8.0P 
8 A.M. on 6.9.1994, on the alarm raised by PW 10, PW 5 and 
PW 16 reached the place of occurrences and saw the 
victim, namely, the brother of PWs 5 and 16, lying on the 
ground and A-3 put his knee on the chest of the victim, 
after holdings his hands tight and A-1, who was armed 
with a 12 bore gun, and A-2 tied his neck with a muffler. 
C After noticing the witnesses, the accused fled away. The 
victim was taken to the hospital, where he was declared 
brought dead. A report was lodged by PW6 and on its 
basis 'Marg' investigation was conducted. On 10.8.1995 
the FIR was registered. The trial court convicted: and 
D sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life uls 302 
read with s. 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction and sentence. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
E appellants that the Marg Intimation Report showed that 
the complainant had only a suspicion against the 
accused and he did not state about their involvement in 
the crime and the accused were convicted merely on the 
evidence of the informant and other eye witnesses, who 
F were the family members of the deceased, having enmity 
against the accused; tha'tthe First Information Report 
came to be registered after nearly a year from the date of 
occurrence and on deliberation and afterthought, the 
statements of the material witnesses were recorded 
G falsely implicating the accused; and that there were 
embellishment and material contradictions in the 
statements of the witnesses and the investigation was 
biased and tainted and the prosecution failed to prove the 
charge against the accused persons. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
SOBARAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 
171 
HELD: 1.1. From the medical evidence it is clear that A 
the deceased died of asphyxia. by strangulation. The 
prosecution case is that accused nos.1 to 3 in 
furtherance of their common intention committed the 
murder of the deceased by strangulating him with a 
muffler (Safee) and to prove the same, they examined 
B 
PW5, PWS, PW10, PW11 and PW16 as having witnessed 
the occurrence. PW10 and PW11 did not support the fase 
of the prosecution in full and were treated as hostile. Two 
among the remaining ocular witnesses are brothers of 
1 
deceased. [para 8-9] [177-G-H; 178-A-B] 
c 
1.2. lmm~diately after the occurrence, during Marg 
investigation, PW5 was examined and from the said 
statement, it is evident that he did not witness the 
incident. It is also relevant to point out that, after 
registration of the FIR on 10.8.1995, the statement of PW-
D 
5 was recorded by the Investigation Officer, wherein, for 
the first time, he has stated abo

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