Contradictions regarding absence of empty cartridges & plea of alibi too trivial to discard entire case based on reliable eye witnesses: Top Court upholds conviction in double murder case
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [16-04-2024]

Read Order: RAMVIR @ SAKET SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1258 OF 2010]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 17, 2024: In a case involving a gruesome broad daylight double murder by repeated gun firing, the Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of the Trial Court imposing life imprisonment upon the appellant-convict.

The appellant, in this case, 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 of Madhya Pradesh on November 10, 1985.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court 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). However, placing reliance on the testimony of Raj Kumari(PW-7), Indal Singh(PW- 12)(injured eyewitness) and Ramraj Singh(PW-14), the Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant for the commission of murder of Kaptan Singh and attempted murder of Indal Singh(PW-12).The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 u/s Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and five years rigorous imprisonment u/s 307. The appeal, before the Top Court, challenged this order on sentence.

The appellant was 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 was not being considered on account of pendency of appeal.

It was the appellant's case that the entire prosecution case was false and fabricated. It was submitted that the case of prosecution was fit to be discarded as the fatal injuries caused to two members of the accused side namely, Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh were not explained by the prosecution witnesses and members of the complainant party having been convicted in the cross case, it was trite they were the aggressors. Thus, it was contended that the accused appellant deserved to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt as well as by giving him the benefit of right of private defence.

The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that insofar as the Sessions Case was concerned wherein six persons from the complainant side were convicted by the trial Court, it was stricto senso not a cross case because the charge against those who stood trial in the aforesaid case was for the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC registered with the allegation of snatching the gun from Chutallu @ Ram Mohan. Thereafter, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) fired gun shots at Chutallu @ Ram Mohan causing him fatal injuries. At that time, Govind Singh and Udai Singh had also fired gun shots at Shiv Singh, who was standing on the platform of the house of Chhutkan Singh. Shiv Singh fell down on the spot and died as a result thereof. These six persons were convicted by the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 396 IPC.

It was also not disputed that Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh received injuries in the very same incident which resulted in their death. The defence case was that the gun held by Chutallu @ Ram Mohan was snatched by the members of the complainant party and thereafter, Ramraj Singh(PW-14) fired a gun shot at Chutallu @ Ram Mohan injuring him in the stomach and back.

The Bench observed that the trial Court as well as the High Court, after thorough appreciation of evidence available on record, discarded the prosecution case regarding the charge of murder of Kalyan Singh attributed to the appellant by holding that the testimonies of two eyewitnesses Surajbeti(PW-5) and Hiraman(PW-6) were not reliable.

The Bench also affirmed the decision of the High Court in discarding the evidence of Ramraj Singh(PW-14) holding it to be not trustworthy based on the reasoning that he did not state as to what had caused injuries to Chutallu @ Ram Mohan and Shiv Singh. Furthermore, even though this witness claimed to have received gunshot injuries at the hands of the accused appellant but he was not medically examined. 

Moreover, having gone through the evidence of both the witnesses i.e.Raj Kumari(PW-7) and Indal Singh(PW-12), the Bench found that nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination which would create a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding presence of these witnesses at the crime scene.

The Top Court asserted, “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.”

“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”, it further added.

Thus, holding that the impugned judgments did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference, the Bench dismissed the appeal.