DATE: 27/03/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
FACTS:
On the day of the alleged incident, Vijay Dongre visited his friend, Mohan Singh, at his village, Bhatkhadi, in District Indore. After spending some time together, Vijay requested Mohan Singh to drop him off at Chowpatty on his motorcycle. Abhay Singh, the son of Mohan Singh’s brother Gopal, also accompanied them to get a haircut. After dropping Vijay at Chowpatty and after Abhay’s haircut at a nearby salon, Mohan Singh and Abhay started back on the motorcycle. It was during this return journey that the fatal attack on Mohan Singh took place. Shortly afterward, Devisingh, Mohan Singh’s father, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at P.S. Kishanpura Ganj, District Indore. In the FIR, Devisingh stated that around 06:30 pm, Abhay came running to him and reported that 3-4 men were assaulting Mohan Singh and that blood was oozing from his abdomen. Devisingh rushed to the scene with his daughter-in-law and witnessed two individuals fleeing—one identified as Ramlal, son of Devaji, and the other dressed in a suit and shoes, both running towards Manpur. Upon reaching the spot, Devisingh saw Mohan Singh’s motorcycle parked nearby and found his son lying lifeless with his head crushed with stones and a gunshot wound in his abdomen. The homicidal nature of Mohan Singh’s death was later confirmed by the post-mortem report (Ex. P-3) and the evidence of Dr. L.S. Verma (PW-2). The autopsy revealed that Mohan Singh had sustained five wounds, including gunshot injuries and wounds caused by sharp and blunt objects. The cause of death was determined to be shock and internal and external hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound and other injuries to vital organs. During cross-examination, however, Dr. Verma admitted that Wound No. 1 was not a gunshot wound but was inflicted by a stabbing weapon, creating a slight inconsistency in the description of the injuries.
Following the investigation, five men were charged with Mohan Singh’s murder and other related offences: Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, Abhay Singh, and Ramlal (the only one specifically named in the FIR). The trial took place in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 2010 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore. On June 27, 2013, the Trial Court convicted all five accused on all counts and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, along with lesser sentences for other offences and fines, with default imprisonment in case of non-payment. The convicts challenged their conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. On January 25, 2024, the Division Bench of the High Court acquitted Abhay Singh of all charges, citing insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal for the remaining four appellants—Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal—confirming their convictions and life sentences. Aggrieved by this decision, the four convicted appellants approached the Apex Court through special leave petitions, seeking relief from their conviction and life imprisonment.
ISSUES:
The issues in this case revolve around the validity of two judgments. The first pertains to the judgment dated January 25, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2013, where the Division Bench acquitted Abhay Singh due to insufficient evidence but upheld the convictions and life sentences of the remaining four appellants—Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal. The second issue concerns the validity of the judgment dated June 27, 2013, delivered by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 2010, where all five accused were convicted on all counts and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, along with lesser sentences for other offences and fines. The core question is whether both judgments were legally sound, based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of criminal law principles.
JUDGMENT WITH REASONING:
The Apex Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment dated January 25, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2013, as well as the judgment dated June 27, 2013, delivered by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 2010. The Court acquitted all the appellants—Arun, Radheshyam, Narendra, and Ramlal—of the charged offences, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It further directed that Ramlal, who was the only appellant still in custody, be released forthwith, unless his continued detention was required in connection with any other case. The bail bonds and sureties furnished by the other appellants were discharged, and any fines paid by them were ordered to be refunded.
The Court found serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the testimonies of Abhay Singh (PW-11) and Vijay Dongre (PW-5). The timelines presented by the witnesses were contradictory, making it improbable for Mohan Singh and Abhay to have been at the crime scene by 06:30 pm, the alleged time of the incident. Abhay claimed they spent half an hour having tea and another half an hour at the barber’s shop, making it impossible for them to have returned before 06:45 pm. This inconsistency cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the delayed recording of witness statements—with Abhay’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. being recorded 17 days after the incident—further weakened the prosecution's case. The Court observed that the delayed statements of other key witnesses, Madhubala (PW-4) and Gopal (PW-8), also raised questions regarding the veracity and reliability of their testimonies.
The Court also noted material contradictions in the forensic evidence. The post-mortem report, initially suggesting a gunshot wound, was later contradicted by Dr. L.S. Verma (PW-2), who admitted that Wound No. 1 was in fact caused by a stabbing weapon, not a gunshot. The recovery of the 12-bore country-made pistol from Arun was therefore rendered insignificant, as no bullet was recovered from Mohan Singh’s body, and no exit wound was found. The Court held that the entire case of the prosecution hinged on the oral evidence of the deceased’s family members, which was found to be unreliable and dubious. Since the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitted them.
ANALYSIS:
The Apex Court's judgment in this case reflects a meticulous evaluation of the evidence, highlighting inconsistencies, contradictions, and procedural lapses that significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court placed particular emphasis on the discrepancies in the witness testimonies, notably those of Abhay Singh (PW-11) and Vijay Dongre (PW-5). The conflicting timelines regarding their whereabouts at the time of the incident raised serious doubts about their credibility. Abhay claimed they spent half an hour having tea and another half an hour at the barber’s shop, making it unlikely for them to have returned before 06:45 pm, whereas the crime allegedly occurred at 06:30 pm or earlier. This temporal inconsistency made it improbable for Abhay and Mohan Singh to have been at the scene of the crime, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court noted the unjustified delay in recording the witness statements, with Abhay’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. being recorded 17 days after the incident, which raised questions about the authenticity and reliability of the testimonies. The delayed statements of other key witnesses, including Madhubala (PW-4) and Gopal (PW-8), further diminished the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Additionally, the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be flawed and unreliable. The post-mortem report, which initially suggested a gunshot wound, was later contradicted by Dr. L.S. Verma (PW-2), who clarified during cross-examination that Wound No. 1 was actually caused by a stabbing weapon. This contradiction rendered the recovery of the 12-bore country-made pistol from Arun inconsequential, as no bullet was found in Mohan Singh’s body, and there was no evidence of an exit wound. The Court concluded that the prosecution's case rested heavily on oral testimonies, primarily from the deceased’s family members, which it found to be dubious and untrustworthy due to contradictions and embellishments. Since the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to them and acquitted them of all charges. This judgment underscores the Court's adherence to the principles of criminal jurisprudence; emphasizing those convictions cannot rest on suspicious or unreliable evidence and must be based on conclusive proof.
info@adhwaitha.com
