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

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 23-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 7 S.C.R. 80 
• 
A 
STATE OF M.P. 
v 
MUNSHI SINGH & ORS. 
, Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2005 
8 
APRIL 23, 2009 
(DR. ARJJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860/Evidence Act, 1872: 
c 
S.302- Murder- Eye-witnesses found not reliable- Trial 
Court acquitting the accused - Appeal thereagaint was 
dismissed by High Court - On appeal, Held: High Court 
noticed that trial court referred to various infirmities in the 
evidence of eye-witnesses -
Their presence at the spot 
D doubtful - Ballistic expert's report contrary to the evidence of 
eye-witnesses - No infirmity in the judgment of High Court to 
warrant interference. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal 
·-,. 
No. 962 of 2005 
E 
From the Judgement and Order dated 25.04.2003 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at 
Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 1989. 
Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben AO, Vibha Datta Makhija, for 
the Appellant. 
S.K. Dubey, Lakhan Singh Chauhan, C.R. Mishra, Anil 
Shrivastava, for the Respondent. 
; 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
G 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, 
H 
80 
• 
STATE OF M.P. V. MUNSHI SINGH & ORS. 
81 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 
dismissing the appeal filed by the State. By the said Appeal the 
A 
State had challenged the acquittal of the respondents. Since 
during the pendency of the appeal, accused Sarman Singh, 
Rameshwar and Shriam had died, the High Court had dismissed 
the appeal against them as having abated and their names were 
deleted from the array of the parties. 
B 
As per prosecution version the occurrence leading to the 
death of Sobran (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was as 
follows: 
On 31/12/82 deceased Sobran and his nephew Hariom C 
(PW.13) were going to fetch water. Suddenly Sarman Singh 
(since dead) armed with 12 bore gun and Munshi Singh (R1) 
armed with Mouzer Rifle fired gun shots on the deceased. 
Hariom (PW.13) ran for safety and saw Rameshwar (since 
dead) armed with 12 bore gun, Hari Singh@ Babu Singh (R2) 
D 
armed with muzzle loading gun, Shriram (since dead) armed 
with single barrel gun, Chhote Singh (R3) and Veerendra Singh 
(R6) armed with country made pistols standing near the well of 
Chamars. They fired three or four gun shots on Hariom (PW.13) 
who was however not injured. Hariom (PW.13) ran towards field 
E 
and saw Bhagwati (RS) and Rukum Singh (R4) standing near 
telephone pole. These respondents followed Hariom (PW.13) 
for some distance but Hariom (PW.13) succeeded in running 
for safety. Hariom (PW.13) told about the incident to Ramgopal, 
Bhogiram (PW.6), Bhagat Singh (PW.7) and Jaswant Singh 
F 
(PW.8). Hariom (PW.13) reported the matter to Shiv Prasad 
(PW.2), Head Constable who was posted as a security guard 
in the village at the house of Munshi Singh (R1 ). Deceased had 
died on the spot due to gun shot injuries. Later on a mouser rifle 
was seized from Munshi Singh (R1) vide Ex.P/1. Two 12 bore G 
empties and three brass empties were handed over to Police 
by Hariom (PW.13) vide Ex.P/6. Ballistic expert vide Ex.P/20 
found that empties seized were not fired from the rifle seized 
from Munshi Singh (R1). Dr. P.C.Mittal (PW.9) found two entry 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A wounds of gun sot in the back of deceased with three exit 
... 
wounds on left side of neck and chest vide Ex.P/10. 
After investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed. 
The accused persons pleaded not guilty in the case and claimed 
B that they have been falsely implicated on account of longstanding 
disputes. The trial court analysed the evidence, particularly of 
Hari Om (PW.13) Jaldevi (PW.12), mother of the deceased, 
and Bhagat (PW.7). The trial Court found the evidence of the 
;, 
so-called eye witnesses to be not reliable and, accordingly, 
c 
directed their acquittal. 
Before the High Court, the stand of the State was that the 
evidence of PW 7, 12 and 13 could not have been discarded. 
The High Court analysed the evidence in detail and held that 
the trial Court was justified in discarding the prosecution version 
D and, therefore, it also dismissed the appeal. 
.. 
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant 
reiterated the stand taken before the High Court -that the 
evidence of three eye witnesses could not have been discarded. 
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgme

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