Ramnaresh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramnaresh [appellant in Cr.A.121/2006] was tried alongwith Bhan Singh, Ramveer Singh, Janak Singh and Mahadev Singh for an offence

under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(1b)(a), 27 of the Arms Act for causing death of Balwan Singh.

Whereas, co-accused Bhan Singh, Ramveer Singh, Janak Singh and Mahadev Singh were acquitted of the offences; the present appellant while

being acquitted of the offence under Sections 25(1)(1b)(a), 27 of the Arms Act has been held guilty for committing murder of Balwan Singh by the

impugned judgment dated 12.01.2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.).

Appellant- Ramnaresh has preferred Criminal Appeal No.121/2006 against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereas

Criminal Appeal 638/2006 is at the instance of the State against acquittal of Bhan Singh, Ramveer Singh, Janak Singh and Mahadev Singh.

Balwan Singh succumbed to following injuries as per post mortem report Ex.P-17 by Dr. Hariram Mourya, examined as PW-18: (i) A wound

of entrance on back right-side near 10th vertebra round in shape with inverted margins blackening of surrounding skin with scorching 1-1/4'''' x 1-

1/4'''' in size dark blood comes out through wound; (ii) An oval wound of entrance (sic. exit) on right side of chest 2'''' below medial to right nipple

margins are everted, lead piece of bullet (entangled) present in the wound between 5th 3 Cra.121.2006 & Cra.638.2006 and 6th ribs size 3/4'''' x

1/2''''; (iii) A lacerated wound on abdomen 2-1/4'''' lateral and right to umblicus margins are inverted 3/4'''' x 1/2''''x 1/2'''' deep in size.

Complaint by Bharat Singh (PW-7) on 10.06.1999 at Police Station Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) at 08:50 set the criminal machinery in

motion against the accused persons on the version that on 10/06/1999 complainant Bharat Singh (PW-7), resident of village Gumanpura, had

come to Seondha to his sister married to Balwan Singh. When he met Balwan Singh, he was found talking with Mahadev Singh and Ramnaresh

who went away after some time. At that time, Chacchu Basturiwale came and after sometime Balwan Singh and Chacchu went to meet Kayam

Singh, Advocate. It was 08:00 am. Complainant also followed them. When they reached in front of higher secondary school, Chacchu was

walking on the right side of Balwan Singh, Balwan Singh was encircled by Mahadev, Ramnaresh (appellant) carrying Addhi (a country-made

pistol) and katta (another name of country-made pistol) and 12 bore gun. The 12 bore gun was fired point blank from the back of Balwan Singh

who fell down. Mahadev, Ramnaresh and one more ran away through the lanes (Chiddiya).

The investigating agency after receiving the information set on to investigate. After getting the body post-mortemed, seizure, seeking scientific

report (FSL report) of the article seized filed the charge-sheet. The case was committed for trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha,

District Datia. Charges were framed.

Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence, being falsely prosecuted.

Prosecution, to bring home the charges, examined 20 witnesses. Out of them, Jagdish Prasad Agrawal (PW- 1), Suresh Kumar (PW-3),

Narayandas (PW-4), Bhagirath (PW-5), Bharat Singh (complainant) (PW-7), Charandas Dubey (PW-9), Moolchand (PW-10), Dabbulal (PW-

11) and Bhagwant Singh (PW-13) did not support the prosecution story. It was Govind Singh (PW-12) who supported the prosecution in bringing

home the charges in corroboration with the medical evidence which led the trial court firstly discard the role ascribed to Bhan Singh, Ramveer

Singh, Janak Singh and Mahadev Singh in forming an unlawful assembly and sharing the common object of causing murder of Balwan Singh and

held Ramnaresh guilty of the offence of causing murder of Balwan Singh.

We will first examine as to whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the four accused persons, viz. Bhan Singh, Ramveer Singh, Janak

Singh and Mahadev Singh.

Govind Singh (PW-12), in paragraph 5 of his testimony, states that he saw only two persons causing fire and he did not see other accomplices

carrying any weapon. He states that it was Ramnaresh (the appellant) who triggered the gun pointed at the back of the deceased.

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"" The trial court after considering the evidence qua these four accused persons gave the finding in

paragraphs 31, 32: ""VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"" 32. ""VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

These findings as to prosecution having failed to establish that the accused persons viz. Bhan Singh, Ramveer Singh, Janak Singh and Mahadev

Singh have formed an unlawful assembly sharing common object of causing murder of Balwan Singh by carrying firearms being based on the

cogent material evidence leaves no scope for causing indulgence with their acquittal.

It is a settled law that the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated

by some manifest illegality. Merely because two views are possible, the High Court would not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower

appellate Court as held in the decision of ""State of M.P. Vs. Ramcharan and others [1985 MPLJ 714]"".

With the same set of evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence of causing murder of Balwan Singh. The trial court though

acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and under Section 25(1)(1b)(a), 27 of the Arms Act while holding the

appellant alone guilty of causing murder of Balwan Singh. The trial court believed the credibility of the evidence of Govind Singh (PW-12) and

medical evidence corroborated with FSL report.

The trial court found:

The presence of Govind Singh (PW-12), at the scene of crime, is, however, questioned by the appellant. It is urged that the complainant

Bharat Singh (PW-7) did not mention in his FIR nor in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about Govind Singh (PW-12) being present with

him when he allegedly followed the deceased and Chacchu. However, as evident from his examination-inchief he denied of having witnessed any

incident, he only states that on coming to Seondha he heard about the murder of Balwan by fire shot by someone. Thus, his version in the FIR and

in the statement to the police as to witnessing the murder having been denied by him in the examination in chief; therefore, non-mentioning of the

name of the persons at the scene of crime in his report is of no consequence. In other words, the testimony of Bharat Singh (PW-7) cannot be the

touchstone on the basis of which the eye-witness count of Govind Singh (PW-12) can be tested. On the contrary, it is borne out from the

testimony of Govind Singh (PW- 12) that he is a frequent visitor to Seondha as his son stays in the house of one Shikharchand Jain. It is further

borne out from paragraph 6 of his testimony that the deceased and the witness i.e. Govind Singh (PW-12) were tried for an offence under Section

302 of IPC for causing murder of Than Singh and Pan Singh who were relatives of Janak Singh, father of present appellant. It is also borne out

that the deceased was Sarpanch and there was dispute about the temple land at his village Rohara and because of the opposition he used to live at

Seondha. This fact gets corroborated with the statement of Kayam Singh (PW-2) who is the lawyer having represented the deceased and his

family members in not only the criminal cases relating to murder of family members of the appellant but also has been the consultant regarding land

disputes. The testimony of Kayam Singh (PW-2) further establishes the fact of appeal in the criminal case pending in the High Court. The Criminal

Case relates to murder of relatives of the appellant who is resident of Kitana. In view of these facts, the presence of Govind Singh (PW-12) at

Seondha, is natural and cannot be said to be that the prosecution has planted him. On the contrary, there is every motive of the appellant who is

the resident of Kitana to avenge the death of his close relatives. Furthermore, merely because Govind Singh (PW-12) has come riding a bicycle

over 15 kms in itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve his presence in Seondha. It is not unnatural for a villager to commute on bicycle. Moreover,

there is no material on record to disbelieve his testimony as to his son living at Seondha and he was visiting his uncle, the deceased, who because

of opposition in village had made an abode at Seondha. The ocular evidence as to the manner in which the offence is commissioned, corroborates

with the medical evidence. A deviation, here and there, in the statement in court which is after five years from the date of incident will not lead to

the conclusion of his uncreditworthiness.

Once the testimony of the sole witness duly corroborated is reliable, the prosecution case cannot be faulted with. In ""Jagdish Prasad and others

Vs. State of M.P. [1994 JLJ 443 SC]"" it is observed by the Supreme Court:

As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated provided the testimony of that single

witness is found out entirely reliable......

In ""Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614]"", it is held:

In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist

upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. ..........................Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be

classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may

acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or

subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases,

that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or

circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single

witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of

witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The

court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which

tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many

precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are

exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the

oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons

operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We

have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the

prosecution.

In the case at hand, as analyzed above, the presence of Govind Singh (PW-12) at Seondha at the scene of crime is found to be natural as the

entire circumstances establish the same. And when the case is examined on the basis thereof the prosecution, in our considered opinion, has

established the presence of Govind Singh (PW-12) at the scene of crime and witnessing the commission of crime.

In view whereof, as the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge of murder of Balwan Singh by the appellant, we find no reason to

interfere with his conviction and the sentence.

Consequently, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.