Challenge against the judgment of the Hon’ble High Cour confirming the Trial court’s judgment
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th July, 2007 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior whereby Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 1998 filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 9th November, 1998 passed by the Vth Upper Sessions Judge, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Session Case No. 70 of 1987 was upheld.
Conviction and sentence
2. Vide judgment and order dated 9th November, 1998, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as below: –
(i) Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’): Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default two months rigorous imprisonment (for the murder of Kaptan Singh).
(ii) Under Section 307 IPC: five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default one month rigorous imprisonment [for the attempted murder of Indal Singh (PW-12)].
Trial for murders of Kaptan singh and Kalyan singh
4. The appellant herein was tried for the murders of Kaptan Singh and Kalyan Singh which took place in two separate incidents and for the attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12) in the incident in which Kaptan Singh was killed. Both these incidents took place in village Bhajai, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh on 10th November, 1985.
Trial court acquitted the accused from the charge murdering Kalyan singh but convicted him for murdering Kaptan singh
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 9th November, 1998 acquitted the accused appellant from the charge of murder of Kalyan Singh holding that the two eyewitnesses who deposed against the appellant for the said incident, namely, Surajbeti(PW-5) and Hiraman(PW-6) were not reliable witnesses as they had not named the accused appellant in the statements made before the Investigating Officer (PW-18) being Exhibit D-5 and Exhibit D-6. However, placing reliance on the testimony of Raj Kumari(PW-7), Indal Singh(PW[1]12)(injured eyewitness) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14), the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above for the commission of murder of Kaptan Singh and attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12).
Accused prayer of remission is not being considered
6. It may be noted here that the appellant herein is reported to have suffered more than 14 years of substantive imprisonment and nearly 22 years imprisonment with remission. However, his prayer for grant of premature release/remission is not being considered on account of pendency of appeal.
Nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination
24. Having gone through the evidence of both the witnesses i.e. , Raj Kumari(PW-7) and Indal Singh(PW-12), we also find that nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding presence of these witnesses at the crime scene.
25. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that these witnesses are partisan witnesses as being closely related to the deceased and hence their evidence should be discarded, does not for a moment, convince us because in a case involving gruesome broad daylight double murder by repeated gun firing, it is unlikely that any of the persons from the neighbourhood, would have the courage to step forward as witnesses. Even otherwise, Indal Singh (PW-12) himself received injuries in the same incident. He has truthfully accepted his role in the incident stating that he fired the gun shots which hit two assailants namely, Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh leading to their death. Hence, clearly the prosecution has given thorough explanation for the injuries received by persons from the side of the accused.
26. The High Court vide judgment dated 27th July, 2007, in the cross case, which was registered against six persons from the complainant party including Indal Singh(PW-12) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14), acquitted these six persons holding that the members of the accused party of the present case were the aggressors and that the injuries which resulted into death of Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh were caused by Indal Singh(PW-12) and his companions in exercise of their right of private defence. The said finding has not been challenged and has thus attained finality.
Trivial contradictions not accepted
27. The trivial contradictions sought to be highlighted by learned senior counsel for the appellant regarding absence of empty cartridges etc. at the place of incident and the plea of alibi is not tenable because we find that these contradictions are far too trivial so as to discard the entire prosecution case which is based on reliable and trustworthy set of eye witnesses whose evidence is corroborated by the evidence of the Medical Jurist and other attending circumstances.
28. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
Party
RAMVIR @ SAKET SINGH .…APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1258 OF 2010 – 2024 INSC 308 – April 16, 2024.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/29815/29815_2009_3_1503_52337_Judgement_16-Apr-2024.pdf
murder, conviction, cross-examination not enough,
