LexVIRENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. VIRENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2018) JULY 11, 2022 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution case that victim was allegedly shot dead and killed by the three persons over a pending property dispute – One of them died during the trial – Conviction of other two-appellant and other u/s. 302/34 and the Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment by courts below – Appeal by the appellant before this Court – Held: Evidence of eye-witness cannot be relied upon as against the other prosecution witnesses – Recovery of weapon not proved – Evidence to implicate the accused not adequate – Failure of prosecution to prove the offence of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Thus, the conviction of the appellant set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The evidence of PW15-star eye witness cannot be relied upon as against the other prosecution witnesses themselves, which stood uncontroverted. The recovery having not been proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant, there is no hesitation in overturning the conviction rendered as it is believed that the prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant has committed the offence. Thus, the conviction rendered by the trial court as upheld by the High Court is set aside and the appellant is set at liberty. [Para 10][471-G-H; 472-A] 1.2 Both the courts shifted the burden on the defence. The evidence rendered by the prosecution witnesses was rejected, either as that of indifferent witnesses or as irrelevant evidence. These are all prosecution witnesses who were not treated as hostile. No attempt whatsoever was made either to treat them as hostile or to re-examine them except that of PW10. Not even a [2022] 7 S.C.R. 464 464 A B C D E F G H 465 suggestion was put to them on the presence of PW15. In such a scenario, the statement made by the prosecution witnesses in favour of the accused would certainly inure to his benefit. Reliance was made on the recovery from the appellant. The fact remains that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that only one shot was fired which could be seen even from the evidence of PW15. While assessing the evidence produced by the defence, courts discarded them without appreciating the fact that it has to be seen only on the degree of probability. [Para 7][470-D-F; 471-B- C] Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 5 SCC 272; Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 3 SCC 538 : [2010] 3 SCR 236 – referred to. Case Law Reference (2005) 5 SCC 272 referred to Para 7 [2010] 3 SCR 236 referred to Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1367 of 2005. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Ms. Akshita Katoch, Chitranshul A. Sinha, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy. AG, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Padmesh Mishra, Prakhar Srivastav, Sneh Bairwa, Ms. Himanshi Shakya, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. M. SUNDRESH, J. 1. Life imprisonment rendered by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh with the imprimatur of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is assailed before us. FACTS THROUGH THE PROSECUTION EYES 2. On 27.04.2001, the deceased Main Babu was allegedly shot dead and killed by three accused namely, Baijnath, Virendra and Suresh VIRENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A B C D E F G H 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. over a long pending property dispute, despite verdicts in their favour. Baijnath, who was the father of the other two accused, died during the trial. For the occurrence that happened at 07:30 a.m., the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by PW14, the father of the deceased at 08:30 a.m. PW16, the Investigating Officer, arrested the accused on the next day followed by recoveries of firearms from Virendra (appellant herein) and Suresh and thereafter completed the investigation. 3. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Arms Act and tried accordingly. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses as against 8 by the defence. The trial court rendered a conviction against
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.