STATE OF M.P. versus LAAKHAN @ LAKHAN

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 21-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 47 
STATE OF M.P. 
A 
v. 
LMKHAN @ LAKHAN 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 177-178 of 2005) 
APRIL 21, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
Section 302 rlw 34 - Murder - Trial Court convicting the 
accused relying on the evidence of informant which according 
to it was cogent and reliable - High Court found the evidence 
not fully reliable and acquitted the accused - On appeal, 
;. 
Held: No question was raised about the authenticity of the FIR D 
- High Court not justified in directing acquittal - Judgment of 
High· Court set aside and that of trial court restored. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 177-178 of 2005. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench 
~· 
Gwalior, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 137 & 248 of 1995. 
Vibha Dutta Makhija for the Appellant. 
F 
Sanjeev Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is G 
,. 
to the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh 
l 
High Court, Gwalior Bench directing acquittal of the respondent 
who faced trial along with another named Kalkai who acquitted 
by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. The 
47 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent was, however, found guilty of offence punishable 
under section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 
1860 (in short 'IPC'). A nine month old child named Gautam 
was the victim. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : 
B 
A per F.l.R. (Ex. P/12) on 3.3.1993 Sheeladevi 
(PW11) with her nine months old son, the deceased, the 
respondent and one Kalkai had reached Mihona at 7.00 
P.M. They proceeded on foot to village Banthari where 
' 
respondent resided. On the way Kalkai took the child from -
c 
Sheeladevi (PW-11) and gave him to the respondent. 
Kalkai told that respondent would keep Sheeladevi (Pw-
11) with him but not the child. Sheeladevi (Pw-11) insisted 
that child be given back to her. She does not want to live 
with the respondent. Thereafter, behind Balaji temple in 
D 
Arhar field Kalkai caught the legs of the deceased, c;hild. 
Respondent throttled his neck till death of the child. 
Sheeladevi (PW-11) shouted. Ranjit Singh (PW-12) 
Rajendra Singh (PW-3), Pradumn Singh (PW-7) and Devi 
Dayal (PW-4) came from the temple. Respondent and 
Kalkai were burying the deadbody. Seeing these 
E 
witnesses both the respondent and Kalkai filed way. 
Sheeladevi (Pw-11) rushed to police station Mihone and 
lidged FIR (Ex. P/12) within 1.5 hours. Investigation was 
undertaken. 
F-
2. After investigation charge sheet was filed. Charges 
were framed. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, 
trial was held. The trial court relied on the evidence of the 
informant. Two other witnesses were examined to prove the 
complexity of the accused persons. They resiled from the 
G statement made during investigation. The trial court held 
version of PW1, the informant, to be cogent and credible and 
~ 
recorded conviction so far as the respondent is concerned. In 
,., 
appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of PW1 was not 
fully reliable and there was a great difference as regards the 
H 
time of occurrence. PW11 stated that the occurrence took 
STATE OF M.P. v. LAAKHAN@ LAKHAN 
49 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
place between 2 to 3 A.M., while the prosecution version was 
A 
that the same was around 7.00 P.M. The High Court concluded 
that even an illiterate rustic woman can differentiate between 
7.00 P.M. in the evening woman can differentiate between 7.00 
P.M. in the evening and 2 to 3 AM. in the morning. Additionally, 
it was held that the accused was not caught and was later on 
B 
arrested. Accordingly acquittal was directed. 
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the 
appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged at 9.00 P.M. So 
t~e death could not have taken place between 2 to 3 A.M. The c 
High Court has lost sight of the traumatic experience of a rustic,· 
illiterate woman. She had come a long way seeking shelter 
from a relative. It is the prosecution version that the accused 
Laakhan had agreed to keep PW-11 with him. There was a 
difference as to whether child was to be adopted and 
D 
maintained by the accused. This appears to be the main cause 
for which the child was snatched and done to death. 
4 .. Several important factors need to be noted.

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