Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     534     OF     2009   

JAYENDRA SINGH                          Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.                           Respondent(s) WITH  

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1670     of     2009   

VEER SINGH PATEL                        Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.                           Respondent(s) WITH

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     519     of     2009   

KAILASH SINGH                           Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.                           Respondent(s)

O     R     D     E     R   

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment  

and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya  

Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1999, dated  

03.09.2007.  By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court  

has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence  

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial  

No. 60 of 1997, dated 20.01.1999.  

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the  

High Court, all the accused persons namely Veer Singh (A-1),  

Jayendra Singh (A-3) and Kailash Singh (A-4), except one,

Page 2

2

Shyamlal (A-2), are before us in these Criminal Appeals. The  

aforementioned accused, Shyamlal, was before this Court in  

[SLP(Crl.) No....(CRLMP No. 5855 of 2008)] and his petition was  

dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2008. By virtue of the said  

order, we assume that A-2 must be undergoing the sentence and  

conviction upheld by this Court.  

3. We have heard, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, and other  

learned counsels appearing for the Appellants.  We have also  

carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the High  

Court as well as by the Trial Court.  We have delved into the  

evidence of the witnesses, in particular, PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and  

PW-5, who were the eye witnesses to the incident and have also  

looked into the post mortem report of the Medical Officer.  In  

our view, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has  

committed any error, irregularity or perversity while arriving  

at the conclusion that the Appellants are guilty of the offences  

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,  

1860 (“the Code” for short).  In that view of the matter, we do  

not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned  

judgment and order passed by the High Court.  Accordingly, we  

dismiss the appeals.  

4. We are informed by the learned counsels appearing  

for the appellants that A-1 and A-4 are on bail and A-2 and A-3  

are in jail serving their sentences.  Learned counsel would  

submit that the appellants have already undergone custody of  

more than 14 years.  Therefore, they request us to permit the

Page 3

3

appellants to make an appropriate representation before the  

State Government for remission of their sentence and release  

them pre-maturely.   

5. In our view, the request of the learned counsel  

appears to be reasonable and, therefore, we direct A-1 and A-4  

to surrender forthwith and, thereafter, permit all the accused  

persons to make an appropriate representation before the State  

Government for remission of their sentence.  We hope and trust  

that the State Government would consider the representation  

filed by the accused persons sympathetically. The said exercise  

shall be done by the State Government within four months from  

the date of filing of the representation by the accused persons.  

Ordered accordingly.

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

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

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 06, 2012