STATE OF M.P. versus DHARA SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 3 S.C.R. 935 
STATE OF M.P. 
A 
v. 
OHARA SINGH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2003) 
MARCH 3, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 and s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Arms 
Act, 1959 - s. 25 and 27 - Conviction under - However, c 
acquittal by High Court extending benefit of doubt - On 
appeal held: Conclusion of High Court that name of 
prosecution witness not mentioned in FIR not correct- There 
was no discussion of evidence of eye-witnesses - Also it 
cannot be said that non-placing of the report of ballistic expert D 
on record was fatal to prosecution case - Thus, order of High 
Court set aside and that of trial court restored. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in 
E 
setting aside the conviction of respondent no. 1 uls. 302 
IPC and ss. 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and respondent 
no. 2 uls. 302 rlw s. 34 IPC, extending them benefit of 
• 
doubt. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The conclusion of the High Court that PW-3's 
name did not find place in the FIR is not correct. PW-2 
clarified that in fact the name of PW-3 was indicated in 
the FIR as · Kaptan'. It is seen that there was no G 
discussion of the evidence of eye-witnesses. In what 
cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential to 
further the prosecution version would depend upon the 
circumstances of each case. High Court was in error in 
935 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 
A directing acquittal of the respondents. The judgment of 
the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is 
restored. [Paras 4 and 5] [938-E-F; 939-E-F] 
Chatar Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 
B 2474; Lakhbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1994 
SC 1029 and Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand 2003 
(12) sec 360, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
c 
AIR 1976 SC 2474 
Referred to. 
Para 4 
AIR 1994 SC 1029 
Referred to. 
Para 4 
2003 (12) sec 360 
Referred to. 
Para 4 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
D No. 1390 of 2003. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2002 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in 
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1993. 
Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben, Vibha Datta Makhija for the 
Appellants. 
K. Sharda Devi for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court, Gwalior Bench, directing acquittal of the 
respondents. Learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, 
G had convicted respondent No.1 for offence punishable under 
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') 
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959(in short the 
'Arms Act'). Respondent No.2 was convicted for offence 
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 
H 
-
• 
• 
STATE OF M.P. v. OHARA SINGH & ANR. 
937 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-+ 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
A 
On 3.10.1998 Sohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the 
'deceased') his son Ram Het, Dhanvanti, Ramswaroop, Kaptan 
Singh and Bhagwan Singh came to Morena from Village 
Rajyekapura for the treatment of Dhanvanti and to purchase 
fertilizer. They were returning back to their village in a bullock 
B 
cart at about 3.00 p.m. Said bullock cart was being driven by 
Bhagwan Singh and the deceased Sohan Lal and Ram 
Swaroop were behind the bullock cart. Ramhet, Dhanvanti and 
Kaptan Singh were sitting in the bullock cart. 
c 
When the said bullock cart reached near Shivlal-ke-pura 
Ki Mata, at that juncture accused Prem Das armed with a gun 
and accused Ohara Singh armed with a katta came in front of 
the bullock cart. Prem Das asked to stop the bullock cart and 
thereafter upon his exhortation Ohara Singh fired the Katta, as 
D 
a result of which Sohanlal died. The bullet hit the chest of the 
deceased. Thereafter the accused persons fled away. 
Two brothers of the accused had died 5.to 6 years ago in 
the hospital with the result that the accused left the village after 
E 
disposing of their land to Gujiars. Subsequently, deceased had 
purchased a portion of land from Gujiars. The accused persons 
were under impression that the deceased got their brothers 
killed. 
The First Information Report (In short the 'FIR') was lodged 
F 
by PW-2 Ramhet and in this manner the criminal law was set 
in motion. The police therea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.