SATYA RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 28 January 2019

540

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 1 S.C.R.

A

SATYA RAJ SINGH

v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Criminal Appeal No. 1314 of 2013)

JANUARY 28, 2019

B

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, 34 – Three accused personsincluding the appellant were prosecuted for committing murder ofone ‘B’ – Appellant convicted u/s.302/34, IPC while the other twoaccused were acquitted – High Court dismissed the appeal filed byCappellant – Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses proved theprosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence ofeye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 proved that the appellant assaultedthe deceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti – PW-5, thedoctor, also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area whereDthe injuries were sustained by the deceased – There is noinconsistency or contradiction between the witnesses to disbelievetheir evidence on any material issue – Their testimony being naturaland consistent and without any contradiction as against the versionstated in FIR, deserves to be believed – It is not the function ofSupreme Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point ofEfact which did not prevail with the Courts below – Same argument,which was unsuccessfully urged before the High Court, was againpressed in service before Supreme Court by the appellant to questionthe legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentencebut having appreciated the submissions, no merit is found in any ofFthem – High Court was right in repelling these submissions andupholding the appellant’s conviction – Constitution of India –Art.136 .

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 It is not the function of this Court to re-assessGevidence and an argument on a point of fact which did not prevailwith the Courts below cannot avail the appellants in this Court.[Para 20][545-D]

1.2 The same argument, which was unsuccessfully urgedbefore the High Court, was again pressed in service before this H

Court by the appellant to question the legality and correctness ofthe order of conviction and sentence but having appreciated thesubmissions, no merit is found in any of them. The High Courtwas right in repelling these submissions and upholding theappellant’s conviction. [Para 24][546-A-B]

1.3 The evidence of PW-1-, PW-3, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-4proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. So far asthe evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned, they actually sawthe incident and stated that the appellant assaulted the deceasedon his neck and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed thatboth of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing theassault made by the appellant. PW-4 (in whose house the deceasedwas brought in injured condition soon after the incident and wherehe died) also saw the condition of the deceased and the nature ofinjuries sustained by the deceased. [Paras 25, 26 and 27][246-B-D]

1.4 PW-6, being the sister of deceased, rushed to the houseof PW-4 on being informed of the incident where ‘B’ was lying inan injured condition. She deposed that on seeing her ‘B’ huggedher and told that the appellant had assaulted him. After sometime, ‘B’ succumbed to his injuries. The evidence of the witnesseshas proved beyond reasonable doubt that assault on the deceasedwas made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area. PW-5,Dr. ‘RS’ also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the area wherethe injuries were sustained by the deceased in his post-mortemreport. No inconsistency or contradictory version between thesewitnesses has been noticed which may persuade one to disbelievetheir evidence on any material issue. Their testimony beingnatural and consistent and without any contradiction as againstthe version stated in FIR, the same deserves to be believed. Asrightly held by the High Court, some minor contradictions hereand there without affecting the substance of their statements couldnot be made basis to reject their entire testimony. The incidentin question occurred around 7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereasthe FIR was lodged by PW-1 on the next day, i.e., 20.09.1999 ataround 9 a.m. The Police Station was around 25 KM away fromthe place of occurrence. Since ‘B’ died after few hours of theincident and by that time it was dark night, it was, therefore, not A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Apossible for the complainant to go to the Police Station which wasaround 25 KM away from the place of occurrence immediately inthe night to lodge the report/FIR. In these circumstances, if PW-1 left for lodging report/FIR on the next day morning and lodgedthe report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannot be said that there wasdelay in lodging the report/FIR. There is no good ground toBinterfere with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by thetwo Courts below which rightly held the appellant guilty forcommission of the offence in question. [Paras 28-31, 33-35][546-E-H; 547-A, C-E]

Lachhman Singh and others v. State AIR 1952 SC 167:C[1952] SCR 839 –referred to Case Law Reference [1952] SCR 839referred toPara 20

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealDNo. 1314 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2009 by the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2464 of 2000.

Mrs. Laxmi Arvind (SCLSC), Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advs. for theAppellant.E

Ms. Shashi Juneja, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advs. for theRespondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directedFagainst the final judgment and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by theHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2464of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed theappeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment dated30.08.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in SessionsGTrial No.690/1999 by which the appellant was found guilty of the offencepunishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, toundergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

H

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, relevantfacts need mention in brief infra.

3. Three accused persons, namely, Satya Raj Singh (appellantherein), Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal were prosecuted forcommitting murder of one person called - Bhaiya alias Narendra underSection 302/34 IPC.

4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Katna by his judgment/orderdated 30.08.2000 found the appellant–Satya Raj Singh guilty forcommission of murder of Bhaiya alias Narendra and accordinglyconvicted him under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergolife imprisonment. So far as other two accused namely, Santosh andUrgent alias Prabhu Dayal are concerned, both were acquitted of thecharge.

5. The appellant – Satya Raj Singh felt aggrieved and filed criminalappeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. So far as theState is concerned, no appeal was filed against that part of the order ofthe Additional Sessions Judge by which two other accused, namely,Santosh and Urgent alias Prabhu Dayal were acquitted. In this way, theorder of acquittal of Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal becamefinal.

6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal filedby Satya Raj Singh, which has given rise to filing of the present appealby way of special leave in this Court only by the appellant-Satya RajSingh.

7. The case set up by the prosecution against the accused personsand which was proved against the appellant is as follows.

8. The incident occurred on 19.09.1999 around 7 p.m. in villageImaliya. Four persons namely, Bhaiya alias Narendra - (deceased),Ravindra Singh (PW-1), Jhallu alias Mahendra (PW-3) and Argent aliasPrabhu Dayal were sitting on the platform (small place in front of house)of one - Uli Singh. They were chatting with each other.

9. At that time, the appellant along with Santosh came there andexpressed his wish to talk to Argent alias Prabhu Dayal. The trio thenwent near to the house of one Abhay Raj Singh alias Daddu.

10. Argent alias Prabhu Dayal then came back and called Bhaiyaalias Narendra (deceased) for two minutes to have some talk. Bhaiya, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahowever, replied that he has to go to his house to serve cow. Argentalias Prabhu Dayal then said to Bhaiya that there is some importanturgent matter, which he has to talk with him and, therefore, he shouldcome with him.

11. Bhaiya accordingly went to participate in the talk with ArgentBalias Prabhu Dayal. At that time, Jhallu, who was still sitting on theplatform, told Ravindra Singh that they had to go to the market to purchasesome items. Ravindra Singh and Jhallu accordingly left for the market.When they were proceeding towards the market and reached near thehouse of Abhay Raj Singh, they saw Satya Raj Singh (appellant herein)assaulting Bhaiya alias Narendra with Gupti (a kind of knife) on hisCneck and its nearby whereas Argent alias Prabhu Dayal and Santosh were standing near to him.

12. On seeing them, Satya Raj Singh (appellant herein) and Santoshboth ran away from the spot. Jhallu seeing the incident ran towardsBhaiya alias Narendra (deceased) whereas Ravindra ran behind SatyaDRaj Singh. After covering some distance, both Satya Raj Singh andSantosh turned back and threatened Jhallu and Ravindra not to chasethem else they would assault them also.

13. Out of fear both gave up their chase and returned back. InjuredBhaiya was then taken to the house of Abhay Raj Singh because theEincident had occurred near to his house.

14. Thereafter on next day morning, i.e., 20.09.1999, Ravindra(PW-1) lodged an FIR at Police Station Badwara, District Katni on thebasis of which crime case No.108/1999 for commission of offencepunishable under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. The appellantFherein-Satya Raj Singh, Santosh and Argent alias Prabhu Dayal wereapprehended and put to trial for commission of the aforesaid offence.Investigation was carried out. Statements of several persons wererecorded. Seizure of items was also made. Post-mortem report wasobtained and then charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed tothe Sessions Court for trial.G

15. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as16 witnesses. The statements of accused were also recorded underSection 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “ theCr.P.C.”) proceedings.

H

16. As mentioned above, the Additional Sessions Judge by hisjudgment/order dated 30.08.2000 convicted the appellant – Satya RajSingh for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34IPC and awarded him life imprisonment but acquitted Santosh and Argentalias Prabhu Dayal of the charges.

17. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh against his conviction and sentence. By impugnedorder, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictionand sentence awarded to the appellant giving rise to filing of the presentappeal by the accused - Satya Raj Singh in this Court.

18. The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, iswhether both the Courts below (Sessions Court and the High Court)were justified in convicting the appellant for commission of the offenceof murder of deceased - Bhaiya alias Narendra.

19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.

20. At the outset, we may take note of one legal principle whichconsistently reiterated by this Court since inception that it is not thefunction of this Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a pointof fact which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail theappellants in this Court (see observation of the learned Judge Saiyid FazlAli, J. while speaking for the Bench in Lachhman Singh and othersvs. State, AIR 1952 SC 167).

21. Yet, we perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution andalso the judgments of the two Courts below with a view to find out as towhether both the Courts were justified in convicting the appellant forcommission of the offence in question.

22. Before the High Court, the appellant (accused Satya Raj Singh)had assailed the judgment/order of the Additional Sessions Judge on twogrounds.

23. One was that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in believingthe testimony of those witnesses who were cited by the prosecution aseye-witnesses to the incident and second since the FIR was lodged bythe complainant (PW-1) very late, therefore, the entire case of theprosecution becomes doubtful and weak qua the appellant and lastly, onappreciation of the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, no case ismade out by the prosecution against the appellant.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A24. The same argument, which was unsuccessfully urged beforethe High Court, was again pressed in service before this Court by theappellant to question the legality and correctness of the order of convictionand sentence but having appreciated the submissions, we find no meritin any of them. In our view, the High Court was right in repelling thesesubmissions and upholding the appellant’s conviction.B

25. The evidence of PW-1-Ravindra Singh, Jhallu alias Mahendra(PW-3), Ram Shankar (PW-2), Gitabai (PW-6) and Abhay Raj (PW-4)proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

26. So far as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned,Cthey actually saw the incident and stated that the appellant assaulted thedeceased on his neck and its nearby with Gupti. They also deposed thatboth of them chased the appellant and Santosh on seeing the assaultmade by the appellant.

27. So far as the evidence of PW-4 (Abhay Raj) is concerned, heDwas the person in whose house the deceased was brought in injuredcondition soon after the incident and where he died. PW-4 also saw thecondition of the deceased and the nature of injuries sustained by thedeceased.

28. So far as the evidence of PW-6 is concerned, she being theEsister of deceased rushed to the house of Abhay Raj on being informedof the incident where Bhaiya alias Narendra was lying in an injuredcondition. She deposed that on seeing her Bhaiya hugged her and toldthat the appellant had assaulted him. After some time, Bhaiya succumbedto his injuries.29. Reading the evidence of the abovementioned witnesses hasFproved beyond reasonable doubt that assault on Bhaiya alias Narendra- the deceased was made by the appellant on his neck and nearby area.PW-5, Dr. R. Sidha, also confirmed the injuries, its nature and the areawhere the injuries were sustained by the deceased in his post-mortemreport.G

30. We have not been able to notice any inconsistent orcontradictory version between these witnesses, which may persuade usto disbelieve their evidence on any material issue. In our view, theirtestimony being natural and consistent and without any contradiction asagainst the version stated in FIR, the same deserves to be believed.

H

31. As rightly held by the High Court, some minor contradictionshere and there without affecting the substance of their statements couldnot be made basis to reject their entire testimony. We, therefore, agreewith the reasoning of the High Court.

32. So far as the next argument of the learned counsel for theappellant, that since there was delay in filing of FIR, the prosecutioncase should not be believed, is concerned, it was also rightly repelled bythe High Court.

33. It is not in dispute that the incident in question occurred around7.30 p.m. on 19.09.1999, whereas the FIR was lodged by PW-1 on thenext day, i.e., 20.09.1999 at around 9 a.m. It is also not in dispute thatthe Police Station was around 25 KM away from the place of occurrence.

34. In our opinion, since Bhaiya died after few hours of the incidentand by that time it was dark night, it was, therefore, not possible for thecomplainant to go to the Police Station which was around 25 KM awayfrom the place of occurrence immediately in the night to lodge the report/FIR. In these circumstances, if PW-1 left for lodging report/FIR on thenext day morning and lodged the report/FIR around 9.30 a.m. it cannotbe said that there was delay in lodging the report/FIR.

35. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere with thereasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below which,in our view, rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of the offencein question.

36. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to bedevoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H