STATE OF M.P. versus UDAI SINGH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 596 · Decided: 01-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
UDAI SINGH 
DECEMBER I, 1997 
[M.M PUNCHHI AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, I860-Sections 302 and 307-Accused committing 
murder of three women in a string and attempting to kill the fourth-One of 
the victims shot dead while she was trying to go back after closing the 
C door-Evidence by three witnesses present at the place of occurrence-
Deposition by Doctor that death caused by gun shot injury and shock and 
haemorrhage-Conviction by Trial Court-Acquilla/ by High .Court on the 
reasoning that defection of the fire on one victim was below to upwards and 
a male is taller than female and hence any male killer could not have shot 
D a female victim from below upwards shooting from a standing position-
Held, such unwarranted conjectures and surmises not justified-Sentence 
awarded by the Trial Court restored. 
. 
. 
Evidence-Creditworthiness-Injured witness having seen the accused 
firing from a close distance-Deposition in the chief examination that there 
E was moon lighi at the time of incident while deposition in the cross 
examination that no moonlight but only torch light-Emphasis on sufficiency 
of light-Held, no discrepancy between the two statements. 
Evidence-Witnesses~Plea of interested witnesses and absence of 
independent witnesses rejected-Depositions given by witnesses held to be 
F cogent and natural-At the time of occurrence in the night, other villagers/ 
witnesses cannot be expected to have assembled in the houses of the deceased. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-F.J.R-Delay of I4 hours-Held, 
no undue delay as the occurrence was in the night time and the police 
station was about 9 Kms away. 
G 
The respondent shot dead three women R,M and B injured the 4th i.e. 
PW 6, the daughter of M, on the night of 6-4-79. Firstly, the respondent 
along with his companions went to the house of R. He was carrying a gun 
while his other companions were carrying lathis and gun. The respondent 
fired twice at PWl, the husband of R, and PW2, her brother-in law, who were 
H sitting outside on the chabutra, but missed them. Both jumped over the wall 
596 
STATE OF M.P. v. UDAI SINGH 
597 
of the chabutra and hid behind the same. When R came out of the house on A 
hearing the sound of the gut shot, she was shot dead by the respondent while 
she was trying to go back after closing the door. After this the respondent 
and his companions went to the house of M where they shot dead Mand shot 
at her daughter PW6 and injured her. Next, the respondent killed B who was 
the aunt of the respondent. The respondent remained absconding till he B 
surrendered himself on 25.10.81. 
The trial Court convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC for 
committing a string of three murders and under Section 307 IPC for attempt 
to commit murder of PW6. In appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment 
of the trial court and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved, the state preferred C 
this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the evidence adduced 
by the prosecution was perfunctory and slipshod as no other independent 
witnesses had been examined in support of the prosecution and that all the 
witnesses were interested. It was further contended that the FIR was given D 
to the Police 14 hrs after the occurrence and there was no explanation for 
such a delay. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond doubt E 
the guilt of the respondent. He is not only guilty of murder of three women 
but also of attempt to kill PW6. Hence, the conviction of the respondent by 
the trial court is correct and the High Court is in error in setting aside the 
same. [603-F) 
i.I. The High Court has chosen to reject the natural evidence of F 
eyewitnesses on the basis of unwarranted conjectures and surmises. The 
evidence of PW 6 is very clear and unimpeachable. She was by the side of 
her mother when the respondent fired. She herself got injured by two gun 
shots though she escaped death. She had seen the respondent firing from a 
close distance. In the chief examination she has stated that the moon light G 
was just then coming out when the incident occurred. In the cross examination 
she had stated that there was no moonlight and torch light was there. The 
High Court has erred in giving great importance to the same in order to 
reject her evidence. In fact, there is no discrepancy between the two 
statements. In the chief examination she has only 

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