Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1007      OF     2008    

AMAR SINGH JATAV & ANR. ...APPELLANTS                  VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT

O     R     D     E     R   

1. Accused No.5 (Amarg Singh Jatav) and  Accused No.6 (Himanshu Mishra) are the appellants  before us in this appeal against the judgment and  order passed by the High Court of Judicature of  Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal  No.1358 of 1995, dated 03.10.2005. By the impugned  judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the  judgment and order passed by the Additional  Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No.111 of  1993, dated 25.01.1994.   

2. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are police  constables.  They, along with two others, had  arrested one Gunda @ Bhuta, as a suspect, in  pursuance of the report filed by one Girdhari for

Page 2

2

an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal  Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short).  While investigating  the said report, they had taken Gunda @ Bhuta from  the Betul police station to Gajpur village for the  purpose of further investigation of the said  report.  It is the case of the appellants that when  Gunda @ Bhuta was taken for the purpose of recovery  of murder weapon in the field of Girdhari, Girdhari  assaulted Gunda @ Bhuta with lathi and kurfi and  thereby caused nearly 13 grievous injuries. As a  result of the injuries, according to the  appellants, Gunda @ Bhuta died while he was being  carried away in the jeep from Gajpur village to  Betul police station.   

3. The Prosecution has examined nearly 12  witnesses in support of their case.  The Trial  Judge, after appreciating the evidence and the  materials on record, has disbelieved the case of  the Prosecution and accordingly has acquitted the  appellants for offences under Section 302 of the  IPC.  

Page 3

3

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and  order, the State of Madhya Pradesh had appealed  before the High Court. The High Court once again  perused and appreciated the evidence and the  materials on record. Thereafter the High Court, in  our opinion, rightly thought it fit to reverse the  finding of the Trial Court and convicted the  appellants for offences under Section 304 Part-II  of the I.P.C.   

5. We have heard in extenso Shri.B.K.Satija,  learned counsel for the appellants and  Smt. Vibha  Datta Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent- State.  We have also carefully perused the  judgments and orders of the Trial Court as also of  the High Court. We have also considered the  evidence that was recorded by the Trial Court.  In  our opinion, the High Court was justified in all  respects to reverse the finding of acquittal of the  appellants.  Since we do not find any legal  infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the  High Court, we do not intend to interfere with the  said judgment. Accordingly, the appeal requires to  be dismissed and it is dismissed.  

Page 4

4

6. We are informed that the appellants are on  bail pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on  07.07.2008.  Now, we direct that the bail bonds of  the accused persons be cancelled and the accused  persons be taken into custody forthwith to serve  out the remaining period of the sentence awarded by  the High Court.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 26, 2012