State of Madhya Pradesh vs Mulayam Singh & others

Appellant/State has filed this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment dated 5.11.1999

passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 37/1992, whereby each respondent was acquitted from the charge of Sections 148, 307

or 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.

During pendency of this appeal, respondent Phool Singh has died and his name has been deleted from the appeal memo by the order of this

Court dated 12.5.2016. Therefore, the appeal against Phool Singh has turned abated.

It would be significant to mention here that against juvenile accused persons Mitthu, Chain Singh and Kalyan Singh, charge sheet was filed

before the Juvenile Court. Undisputedly, Raghuvir (PW-2) is the son of Shantibai (PW-5), deceasedrespondent Phool Singh was the father of

respondent Samundar Singh, respondents Mulayam Singh, Jagdish and Nandram are mutually brothers, respondents Kamal Singh and

Gayaprasad are real brothers, and admittedly Raghuvir Singh (PW-2) and deceased-respondent Phool Singh were having restraint relations due to

land dispute between them.

Prosecution''s case in brief is that complainant Machal Singh (PW-1) lodged FIR on 8.9.1991 at 3.00 pm at Police Station Gyaraspur to the

effect that on same day he with Raghuvir Singh and Raghuvir Singh''s mother Shanti Bai were going to Atari Khejda market at about 1.30 pm and

as they reached in front of the house of Jagan Kachhi, respondent Phool Singh having Katarna, respondent Chironjilal having a double-barrel gun,

Nandram having a gun, Kamal Singh S/o Chhoteram having gun, Gayaprasad, Kallu, Chain Singh and Suresh each having a stick and respondent

Ratan Singh having a taval came there and surrounded the complainant Machal Singh and his two abovenamed companions and started their

beating. Respondent Phool Singh and Jagdish assaulted Raghuvir Singh with their Katarna, which caused head injury to Raghuvir Singh and others

assaulted with sticks. However, Raghuvir''s mother Shanti Bai tried to save her son, then Phool Singh assaulted with his Katarna which caused

injury on left hand''s wrist of Shanti Bai. Chironjilal hit with butt of his gun on complainant Machal Singh. Much bleeding started oozing from the

head injury of Raghuvir Singh, who was also having injuries on back and elbow of left hand and knees of both the legs. After hearing injureds''

crying, Kamal Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Jagan came to spot, then the respondents and their companions fled away. The complainant with Kamal

Singh and Bhagwan Singh took Raghuvir Singh to Gyaraspur Hospital after lifting him and dropping Raghuvir at the hospital, the complainant

reached to police station for reporting.

Head Constable Narvada Prasad (PW-10) scribed the FIR and injured Raghuvir Singh, Shanti Bai and Machal Singh were sent for their

medical examination and Dr.. R.K.Rai (PW-11) on same day examined Raghuvir Singh, Shanti Bai and Machal Singh and recorded their MLC

Reports (Exts. P/17, P/18 and P/19) respectively. Abovementioned doctor opined that Raghuvir Singh''s head injury was grievous. The formalities

of investigation were completed by Investigator R.K.Tiwari (PW-6). The respondents were arrested. During investigation, a Katarna and a double

barrel gun were seized from Phool Singh vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2), a Katarna was seized from the respondent Ramesh vide seizure memo

(Ex.P/4), a gun was seized from the respondent Kamal Singh vide seizure memo, Ex.P/6, a farsa from respondent Jagdish was seized vide seizure

memo (Ex.P/10) and separately sticks were seized from accused persons Mulayam Singh, Suresh and Gayaprasad by separate seizure memos.

The seized bloodstained soil and simple soil were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. After filing of the charge sheet, the

case was committed to Sessions Court by the Magistrate.

Each respondent abjured the guilt. It was the defence of respondent Ratan Singh, Jagdish and Samundar Singh that actually at the time of

incident Reghuvir Singh (PW-2), Shanti Bai (PW-5), Machal Singh (PW-1) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-4) jointly armed reached to the agricultural

land of respondent Samundar Singh bearing Survey No. 213 to dispossess Samundar Singh with other companions and Raghuvir Singh and his

companions assaulted and inflicted injuries to them. That incident was reported and police sent them for medical examination. It was the defence of

remaining respondents that they were not at the scene of occurrence and they have been falsely implicated. In defence, Dr. Mahendra Jain (DW-1)

was examined.

After hearing, the learned trial Court acquitted each respondent from abovementioned framed charges mainly on the ground that complainant

Machal Singh (PW-1) himself in his crossexamination supported the defence of some respondents that actually Raghuvir Singh and his companions

had tried to dispossess Samundar Singh at the time of incident and the incident had occurred in the field of Samundar Singh, in which some

respondents received injuries and prosecution witnesses Raghuvir Singh (PW-2) and his companions were actually aggressors and Machal Singh

(PW-1) was not declared hostile by the prosecution, hence his evidence was binding on the prosecution which makes the prosecution case totally

doubtful and unbelievable. Consequently, the trial Court acquitted each respondents from the charged offence, which is challenged in this appeal.

Appearing Public Prosecutor on behalf of the appellant/State contended that complainant Machal Singh (PW-1) though was not formally

declared hostile before the trial Court, but he was crossexamined by the Additional Public Prosecutor and the evidence of other injured

prosecution witnesses Raghuvir (PW-2) and his mother Shanti Bai (PW-5) was corroborated by two other eye-witnesses Jagan (PW-3) and

Bhagwan Singh (PW-4) and it was also corroborated by the evidence of Dr. R.K. Rai (PW-11) regarding injuries of Raghuvir and Shanti Bai, but

the trial Court wrongfully gave more weightage to the evidence of complainant Machal Singh (PW-1) in his cross-examination, hence it is prayed

that appeal be allowed and respondents be convicted and properly sentenced.

Per Contra, appearing counsel for the respondents submits that it was clear from the evidence of Dr. R.K. Rai (PW-11) that Raghuvir Singh

(PW-2) and his mother Shanti Bai (PW-5) were not having any grievous injury, whereas from the evidence of defence witness Dr. Mahendra Jain

(DW-1), supported by x-ray report and x-ray photo plate (Ex.D/10) it is clear that actually respondent Ratan received grievous injury of fracture

of his ulna bone of right forearm and there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence given by alleged injured and eye-witnesses

produced by the prosecution, their police statements and the evidence given by them before Juvenile Court. Therefore, it is argued that the

acquittal of the respondents is legally justified, which could not be interfered in appeal against acquittal.

It is clear from the evidence of Dr. R.K.Rai and his MLC Report (Ex.P/17) that on 8.9.1991, when at Primary Health Centre, Gyaraspur, he

examined semi-conscious Raghuvir, he found bleeding from his head and that injury was covered with a cloth and after opening the cloth bleeding

accelerated, hence he again tied the cloth and he also found two parallel placed long bruises on back (scapular region) of simple nature and he also

found two parallel bruises on joint of left elbow, which were also of simple nature. The abovementioned bruise injuries were caused by hard and

blunt object. He deposed that as there was speedily flowing of blood from the head injury of Raghuvir, it might be grievous, hence he referred

Raghuvir for further treatment to the District Hospital, Vidisha but Dr. Rai (PW-11) admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention that

the head injury of Raghuvir was incised or lacerated or penetrated wound, therefore, he is unable to opine that it was caused by any sharp edged

weapon but admitted in para 10 that for grievous injury fracture is necessary and if there was no fracture in any bone of skull then the head injury

would be simple. There is no x-ray report or any other evidence available on record regarding treatment of Raghuvir in any hospital. Therefore, it is

clear that it was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident Raghuvir (PW-2) had received any grievous

injury. Hence, the finding of the trial Court that the charge under Section 307 of IPC was not established, appears to be totally sound and justified.

According to the evidence of Dr. R.K.Rai (PW- 11) and his MLC (Ex.P/18) on 8.9.1991, he medically examined Shanti Bai (PW-5) and

found an incised wound of size 3""x2"" over lateral side of left forearm, situated 3 "" above the wrist joint. According to him, this injury was caused by

hard and sharp object and its nature was simple and appearing to be caused within that day.

It is also clear from the evidence of Dr. R.K.Rai (PW-11) and his MLC (Ex.P/19) that on the same day he medically examined Machal Singh

(PW-1) and found following injuries on his body :-

(i) Incised wound of 1x1/2 "" on lateral side of left arm caused by hard and sharp object and its nature was simple;

(ii) There was sign of inflammation and exudation of blood around on the abovementioned injury of Machal Singh and it was also of simple nature.

Dr. R.K.Rai opined that the incised injury was caused by hard and sharp object. Therefore, it is clear that no injured prosecution witness has

received grievous injury on the date of incident.

Raghuvir (PW-2) deposed that on the date of incident when he was going at 1.30 pm with his mother Shanti Bai and complainant Machal

Singh to attend the weekly market (Haat) of Atari Khejda then in the way about two furlong away from his house, in front of the house of Jagan

(PW-3), he and his companions were assaulted by in total 14 accused persons including the present respondents. He deposed that respondent

Jagdish assaulted with Katarna in the middle of his head and when his mother tried to save him, Phool Singh inflicted injury on his mother''s left

hand by Katarna. He fell down and on crying of his mother, Jagan, Kamal Singh and Bhagwan came there, who lifted him and kept at the house of

Jagan. He also deposed that his dying declaration was recorded by Tahsildar, Gyaraspur. Contrary to the evidence of Raghuvir, his mother Shanti

Bai (PW-5) deposed that on the date of incident she was going to Atari Khejda with Raghuvir and Machal Singh for her treatment and in total 14

accused persons committed incident and injured them. Though she knew the names of all 14 persons, but in her deposition she only disclosed

names of Phool Singh, Jagdish, Samunder, Ratan, Chain Singh, Ramesh and Nandram.

Complainant Machal Singh (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief supported the prosecution''s case, but on 17.9.1993 his cross-examination

remained incomplete and it appears that before his remaining cross-examination on 16.12.1998, an affidavit (Ex.D/9) was sworn by him

supporting the defence plea and thereafter he deposed in his crossexamination that as he was pressurised by Raghuvir Singh, he had mentioned

falsely the names of present respondents as accused persons in the FIR and actually the incident had occurred in the field of respondent Samundar

Singh, when Reghuvir (PW-2), Bhagwan Singh (PW-4), Shantibai (PW-5), Randhir Singh and some other persons had gone to that field to

dispossess Samundar Singh and in fact Raghuvir and his companions have assaulted wherein respondent Samundar Singh, Ratan Singh and Jagdish

had received injuries. It appears from the record of trial Court that on 16.12.1998 after completion of cross-examination of Machal Singh (PW-1),

he was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution wherein he deposed that the facts mentioned in his

affidavit (Ex.D/9) are true but before crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, it appears that Machal Singh was not declared hostile

by the prosecution.

Shanti Bai, mother of the injured Raghuvir, (PW-5), in para 8 of her cross-examination has firstly shown her ignorance about the fact that

complainant Machal Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Raghuvir Singh had gone to dispossess respondent Phool Singh from the land bearing Survey No.

213 but in next breath, in some para she deposed that complainant Machal Singh, Bhagwan Singh and her son Raghuvir were being driven off from

that field upto the scene of occurrence. The abovementioned facts, came in the cross-examination of injured Raghuvir''s mother, also provide

corroboration to the defence plea that actually Raghuvir had gone to the disputed land with Bhagwan (PW-4) and Machal Singh (PW-1) to

dispossess the respondents.

As an eye-witness, Jagain (PW-3) deposed that on the date of incident when he was at his house then after hearing the sound when he came

out of his house, he saw that respondent Jagdish assaulted with his Katarna over Raghuvir''s head and he brought the injured Raghuvir to his house,

but he admitted in his cross-examination that a civil suit is pending between respondent Samundar Singh and Balaram and a different civil suit is

pending between respondent Samundar Singh and him, wherein complainant Machal Singh had given evidence on his behalf, but Jagan (PW-3)

admitted in crossexamination (para 11) that when after the incident police came to his village, then he had absconded from his house because he

was under fear that he can be arrested by the police, though he deposed in the cross-examination that he had not seen any injury on that day on the

bodies of respondents Ratan Singh, Jagdish and Samundar. He admitted in para 26 that on the date of incident the respondents have also lodged

police report against them. Surprisingly, Kalabai (PW-7), wife of Jagan, by her deposition has not supported the prosecution''s case and deposed

that though any quarrel had occurred in front of her house, but as she was suffering from fever, she did not see the quarrel.

Bhagwan Singh (PW-4) in his deposition, as eye-witness, deposed that after hearing the sound of crying, when he reached in front of the house

of Jagan, he saw that Phool Singh, Jagdish and all other respondents were beating Raghuvir by sticks. In next sentence, he deposed that at that

time respondents Chironjilal and Nandram, each was having gun, but in para 4 he clearly deposed that the incident had occurred due to land

dispute, which was pending from long time. He admitted in crossexamination that respondent Samundar Singh and his mother Sangitabai had filed

a civil suit regarding the land against him, in which beside him, his father Balaram, Raghuvir Singh (PW-2), Pratap, Jamuna and Randhir are also

parties and Jagan (PW-3) is also a party to that suit. Raghuvir (PW-2) admitted in para 25 that the suit filed by the respondent Samundar Singh

and his mother Sangitabai is pending before the Civil Court against him and in para 26 he deposed that he was having a land dispute with

respondent Phool Singh, whose son is Samundar Singh, and other respondents also belong to their family.

Therefore, it is clear that there was along pending civil litigation and land dispute between Raghuvir (PW-2) and respondent Samundar Singh,

his father Phool Singh and other respondents.

Investigator A.K.Tiwari (PW-6) clearly admitted in his cross-examination (para 10) that on 9th September, 1991, respondents Samundar

Singh, Jagdish and Ratan Singh had come to Police Station Gyaraspur and informed that they were injured and he caused their medical

examination. Respondents also lodged the report at police station, but he has shown his ignorance that whether any charge sheet was filed or not

against the complainant party of this case. The investigator deposed that he received medical reports of injured respondents on 10.9.1991, wherein

all injuries were reported to be of simple nature but Dr. Mahendra Jain (DW-1) deposed that on 20.9.1991 in x-ray examination of respondent

Ratan''s right elbow and forearm, it was found that the upper 2/3rd part of ulna bone was having so many fractures and he proved his original x-ray

report (Ex.D/11), which is annexed with x-ray photo plate and it is also mentioned in his x-ray report that abovementioned x-ray examination was

conducted by him as it was referred by Dr. S.G.S. Khare, posted at District Hospital, Vidisha. He also identified the respondent Ratan at the time

of his cross-examination. Hence, the evidence given by Investigating Officer A.K.Tiwari (PW-6) that all the three injured respondents Samundar

Singh, Ratan Singh and Jagdish were having simple injuries is rebutted by the evidence of Dr. Mahendra Jain (DW-1). There is no reason to

disbelieve on the evidence of Dr. Mahendra Jain (DW-1) supported by x-ray report and x-ray photo plate. Therefore, it is clear that the

investigation of this case was not fair and genuine as no cross-case was registered against the complainant party.

Raghuvir (PW-2) and his mother Shanti Bai (PW-5) also deposed that they did not see any injury on body of any of the respondents on the

date of incident. Hence, it is clear that there was no explanation of the grievous and other injuries received by some of the respondents in the

incident by the prosecution witnesses. It is clear from the evidence of Shanti Bai (PW-5) and Machal Singh (PW-1) that actually the incident

started at the field of Samundar Singh, hence it was clear that the actually Raghuvir (PW-2) and his companions were the aggressors, on the date

of incident and they tried to dispossess the respondents from the possession of relating land. It is clear that Jagan (PW-3) and Bhagwan (PW-4)

are also party in the relating civil suit filed by the respondents against Raghuvir (PW-2) etc.

In such factual scenario, Jagan (PW-3) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-4) cannot be termed as independent witnesses. As previously observed, the

evidence of Jagan (PW-3) is not even supported by his wife Kalabai (PW-7). Two other examined witnesses Takhat Singh (PW-8) and Bhaiyalal

(PW-9) were also declared hostile though these witnesses were Panch witnesses of relating seizure memos. As no FSL report was filed before the

trial Court, hence, the circumstantial evidence regarding seizure of various weapons appears to be immaterial.

It is well established that the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is very limited. It has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the

case of T. Subramanian vs. State of T.N., (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, in para no.14 of its judgments in following words:-

In State v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364, we have reiterated the wellrecognised principle that if two views are possible, the

appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court; and that only where the material on record leads to a sole and inescapable

conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has properly and legally appreciated the evidence

available before it and had not erred in recording finding of acquittal, which cannot be interfered with.

Consequently, the State appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment

dated 5.11.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 37/1992 is affirmed.

The respondents are on bail. Their presence is no more required before the concerned trial Court where they are appearing and, therefore, it is

directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.