LexSTATE OF M.P. versus SUGHAR SINGH. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 725 __,. 4 t STATE OF M.P.· A ~ v., SUGHAR SINGH. & ORS. , (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1362-1'363 of 2004) I -1 NOVEMBER7, 2008 · B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] . Y' Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 304 (part II) rlw s. 149 and ss. 148 and 3241149 - Accused attacking the complainant and his companion in order to prevent their cattle from being taken to cattle pond - Incident, resulting in death of one of the victims and injuries to the other - Conviction by trial court ulss 3021149, 148 and D 3241149 - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: High Court T committed an error in ordering acquittal on the ground -of inconsistency in medical evidence and eye-witness account - Prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed about participation of the accused in the crime - Injuries sustained E by victims have been clearly established - However, in view of nature of injuries and totality of facts and circumstances, the offence committed is culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Judgment and order of acquittal passed by High , 'l( Court set aside - Accused convicted uls 304 (part II) rlw s. 149 /PC and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment - F Conviction and sentences ulss 148, 3241149 as recorded by trial court also restored. The respondents were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable ulss 3021149, 3241149, 147, 148 and G -< 406 IPC. The prosecution case was that while PW-2 and his companion were guarding their crop, some cattle from "' the neighbouring village entered their fields at about 3-4 A.M. They surrounded and started taking the cattle to 725 H : ' .... 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A cattle pond. At that time the accused appeared armed with 'farsa', 'ballam', 'lathi' etc. and attacked PW-2 and his companion. On the shouts of the injured, PWs 8 to 10 and another petson who were also· guarding their crops reached the spot. The accused left the place taking away s the cattle with them. An FIR was lodged. The injured were medically- examined at-the Primary Health Centre. Since the condition. of the companion ·of PW-2 was critical, he was referred to the District Hospital. However, he died on the way. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 302/ c 149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They were further convicted u/s 324/149 and s.148 and each of them was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under each count. However, the High Court acquitted all of them of all the charges holding that there 0 was inconsistency between the eye-witness account and the medical evidence. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals. E Allowing the appeals in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. As far as the contradictions in the deposition of eye witnesses and medical evidence is concerned, the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion_ that medical evidence did not support the version of eye-witnesses. It is clearly established from the F evidence of PW-2, who was injured during the incident, and other eye-witnesses PWs 4 and 8 that the prosecution witnesses were in their fields protecting the crop in the early morning and the cattle entered the fields. PW-2 and the deceased wanted to take the cattle to cattle pond. The said act enraged the accused and they G attacked PW-2 and the deceased causing injuries to them. There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of. prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident as also participation of the accused. [Para 13] H [731-G-H; 732-A-C] )- /- I ·- )( I --( ~ .. ' - y 1 ' -----<: -1 STATE OF M.P. v. SUGHAR SINGH & ORS. 727 1.2. Injuries sustained by the deceased and PW2 have been clearly established. The main reason weighed with the High Court was that the doctor, PW-1, had opined that he did not find any incise wound on the head of the deceased. However, PW5, the doctor, who had examined the deceased immediately after the incident and referred him to the District Hospital, had stated that there were two incise injuries, one of which was on the middle of the head. In fact, when a question was put to PW-1 in the cross-examination, he stated, "after dressing, it is difficult to tell about the nature of injuries". In view of the explanation, it was clear that the High Court committed an error in ordering acquittal on the ground of inc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.