Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard three criminal appeals arising from a single incident of murder that occurred on the night of September 13-14, 1992, near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court convicted seven persons under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Babusingh, while eight others were acquitted. The High Court upheld the convictions. Three appellants—Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Gajrajsingh—appealed to the Supreme Court. The facts reveal that Babusingh was returning to his village on a motorcycle with two pillion riders, Gattu (PW8) and Vasu (not examined). They were attacked by a group armed with dharia and swords, resulting in Babusingh's death. The prosecution's case relied heavily on eyewitnesses, particularly Mansingh (PW5) and the father of the deceased, Motisingh (PW1). The Dehati Nalishi (FIR) recorded at the spot at the instance of Motisingh did not name the three appellants. Mansingh, in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), also failed to name them, though he named four other accused. In court, Mansingh claimed the appellants were present, but could not explain why their names were omitted earlier. The Supreme Court found that the omission of the appellants' names in the FIR and the Section 161 statement created a grave doubt about their presence at the scene. The court noted that Mansingh knew the appellants and could have named them if they were actually present. The court also observed that Gattu (PW8), the pillion rider, could not identify any assailant. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions of the three appellants, and ordered their immediate release unless required in any other case. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Deepak Gupta on April 9, 2019.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Benefit of Doubt - Sections 302, 149, 148 IPC - The appellants were convicted for murder but their names were absent in the Dehati Nalishi (FIR) and in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the eyewitness Mansingh (PW5). The Supreme Court held that this grave doubt entitles them to acquittal. (Paras 7-12) B) Evidence Law - Eyewitness Testimony - Omission of Names - Section 161 Cr.P.C. - The eyewitness Mansingh (PW5) did not name the three appellants in his police statement, though he named four other accused. The court found no plausible explanation for this omission and held that the evidence cannot be used to convict the appellants. (Paras 9-11) C) Criminal Procedure - First Information Report - Dehati Nalishi - The Dehati Nalishi recorded at the spot did not contain the names of the appellants. The court noted that if the eyewitness was present, his statement should have been recorded, and the omission of names raises serious doubt. (Paras 7, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the three appellants were present at the spot of murder when their names were missing from the Dehati Nalishi and the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the key eyewitness?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction of Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Gajrajsingh, and directed their immediate release unless required in any other case. The judgment of the trial court dated 19th November 2001 in Sessions Case No.57 of 1993 and of the High Court dated 27th June 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1354 of 2001 were set aside insofar as they related to the appellants.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Missing names in FIR
- Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement discrepancy
- Eyewitness credibility
- Identification of accused
