STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus CHHAAKKI LAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
CHHAAKKI LAL AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal Nos.21-22 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Appeal against acquittal – Case
of the prosecution that accused no.1 and 2 shot dead PW-1’s
daughter and three other relatives while they were  going along
with PW-1 towards the fields to cut crop – Trial court held the accused
persons guilty u/s.302 – High Court acquitted the accused persons
– On appeal, held: It is the case where four people were murdered
in broad day light – One of the deceased, PW-1’s grandson was a
child of three years – High Court did not appreciate the evidence
of PW-1, the sole eye witness in proper perspective and erred in
disbelieving her version on the contradictions which are not material
– Version of PW-1 is corroborated by the medical evidence and the
evidence of ballistic expert – In an appeal against acquittal, the
appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal, but where the approach of the High Court suffers from
serious infirmity, Supreme court can reappreciate the evidence and
reasonings upon which the order of acquittal is based – Judgment
of the High Court suffers from serious infirmity – Judgment of the
trial court restored – Trial court holding the case to be one of the
‘rarest of rare cases’ awarded death penalty to the accused persons
– However, occurrence was of the year 2006 and moreover, the
appeal against accused no.2 has abated due to his death –
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the passage
of time, award of death penalty is not warranted and imposition of
life sentence upon accused no.1 would meet the ends of justice –
Evidence Act – ss.27 and 134.
FIR – Contents of – Held: FIR is not an encyclopaedia which
is expected to contain all the minute details of the prosecution case
– It may be sufficient if the broad effects of the prosecution case
are stated in the FIR.
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 184
184
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1  It is the case where four people were murdered
in the broad day light. One of the deceased was a child of three
years of age.  The prosecution case revolves around the solitary
testimony of eye-witness PW-1 which was accepted by the trial
court as trustworthy. While reversing the verdict of conviction,
the High Court held that the evidence of PW-1 is fraught with
inconsistencies and hence, her evidence is not reliable. Of course,
there is a slight improvement in the version of PW-1 before the
court but the circumstance under which Complaint (Ex.-P1) was
recorded has to be seen. PW-1 had lost her four kith and kin. At
the time when Complaint was recorded, PW-1 must have been
grief-stricken and under mental trauma and she might have stated
that she heard four-five gun shots and then saw the dead bodies
of ‘GB’ (PW-1’s daughter) and  ‘GS’ (son of jeth of PW-1’s
daughter) and then the accused came near ‘P’ (PW-1’s
daughter-in-law) and child ‘R’ (PW-1’s grandson) and fired at them.
[Paras 10, 12 and 14] 192-A, F-G; 193-C-D]
1.2  In his evidence, PW-3 stated that the dead bodies of
‘GB’ and ‘GS’ were found close to each other and that dead bodies
of ‘P’ and ‘R’ were at a distance of 25-30 feet away from the dead
bodies of ‘GB’ and ‘GS’. In his statement, Investigating Officer
(PW-13) stated that dead body of ‘P’ was at a distance of about
fifty yards from the dead bodies of ‘GB’ and ‘GS’ and that was
mentioned by him in the Site Plan (Ex.-P24). After referring to
the Site Plan, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-13-IO, the trial court
pointed out that the place where ‘P’ and ‘R’ were shot and dead
bodies of ‘GB’ and ‘GS’ were found, were at a short distance of
about fifty yards.  The trial court observed that since the distance
was not far away, case of the prosecution that ‘GS’, ‘GB’, ‘P’ and
‘R’ were all shot by the accused in the course of the same
transaction is established by the oral evidence of PW-1 and also
by the Site Plan. After referring to the evidence of PW-13-
Investigating Officer and Site Plan, when the trial court had
recorded that the firing of all the four deceased were in the course
of the same transaction, the High Court ought not to have doubted
the version of PW-1 on the slight improvement made in her
evidence. [Paras 17, 18] [194-D-G]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. CHHAAKKI LAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
1.

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