THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NANDE @ NANDKISHORE SINGH

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 23-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
497
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
NANDE @ NANDKISHORE SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2016)
JANUARY 23, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code – ss.304, Part-I and 307 – Prosecution case that
some women were attending marriage celebration when the accused-
respondent hurled a burning cow dung cake at them and caused
serious burn injuries to them – While undergoing treatment two
women died – Accordingly, charges u/ss.307, 302 were levelled
against the accused-respondent – However, trial Court upon finding
that there was no proof that the accused had intentionally killed the
deceased made him liable to be punished u/s.304, Part-I instead of
s.302 and convicted him u/ss.307 and 304,Part-I – High Court
acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges – On appeal, held:
In instant case, admittedly there was no enmity between the accused
and the victims – Out of 12 prosecution witnesses, 5 witnesses
(including two injured) did not support the case of prosecution and
turned hostile – There were material contradictions in the statements
of prosecution witnesses (PW-5, PW-7) on which the State has heavily
relied on – FIR was lodged 13 days after the incident and there was
no plausible explanation for this inordinate delay – Further, there
was huge delay in recording the statements of the witnesses with no
explanation for the same – High Court has thoroughly considered
all aspects of the case and rightly taken them into account and
reached the correct conclusion that this is certainly not a case where
the guilt of the accused could be said to have been established
beyond reasonable doubt.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  In the instant case, admittedly there was no
enmity between the accused and the victims. Out of the 12
prosecution witnesses, injured (PW 1), (PW 3), (PW 4), injured
(PW 6) and (PW 8), did not support the case of prosecution and
they turned hostile. As far as the statements of alleged
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 497
497
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
eyewitnesses P.W.5 and P.W.7 are concerned, on which counsel
for the State has heavily relied on, there were material
contradictions inasmuch as PW 5 in her cross examination stated
that when the incident took place it was moonless night, the area
was surrounded in darkness as there was no light and one cannot
identify another. She also admitted that she heard the name of
the accused for the first time after the incident.  However, (P.W.7)
contradicted the same. In his deposition he stated that in the
light of the gas light all persons were visible. It did not happen
that electricity supply was cut and it became dark. [Para 9][500-
G-H; 501-A-B]
2.  Another discrepancy in the prosecution case is that the
First Information Report was lodged on 16.06.1994 i.e. 13 days
after the incident and there is no plausible explanation coming
forth from the prosecution for this inordinate delay. Also, the
statements of the witnesses were recorded on 28.06.1994 and
there is no explanation of such huge delay in recording the
statements.[Para 10][501-B-C]
3.  In the instant case,  the High Court has thoroughly
considered all aspects of the case and rightly taken them into
account. Only after considering the credibility of the eyewitnesses
and the circumstances in which the incident occurred, the High
Court reached to the correct conclusion that this is certainly not
a case where the guilt of the accused could be said to have been
established beyond reasonable doubt and in a great detail,
expressed the reasons for its conclusion.  [Para 11][501-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
624 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2009 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal
Appeal No. 349 of 2009.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey, Arjun Garg, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Ms. Nidhi, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA,  J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
499
of a judgment dated 22nd April, 2009 of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2002.
By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the order of conviction
against the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section
304, Part I and 307, IPC passed by the learned trial Court, and acquitted
him of the charges.
2. According to the prosecution, on 1st June, 1994 at about

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