REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 146-147  OF 2008

PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS. ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF M.P. ..  RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 1180  OF 2008

O  R D E R

This Order will dispose of all the above appeals as  

they arise from a common judgment.

The facts of the case are as under:

At 12.50 p.m. on the 30th September, 1996 as the  

deceased  Ganeshram  accompanied  by  his  relative  Annilal  

(PW.2) and his son Chandan Singh (PW.5) were about to cross  

the Narmada river on a boat, the five accused, Rammilan

Lodhi and Babulal Lodhi, both armed with shot guns, and  

Dullam, Hukum and Prahlad armed with lathis came out of a  

bush.  On seeing Ganeshram and the others Prahlad, Hukum  

and  Dullam  exhorted  Rammilan  and  Babulal  to  fire  at  

Ganeshram.  On this exhortation Rammilan first fired a shot  

at Ganeshram which hit him on the abdominal area killing  

him instantaneously  and a shot fired by Babulal caused a  

severe injury on the head of Annilal (PW.2), Chandan Singh  

(PW.5) who was behind them at some distance answering the  

-2-

call of nature witnessed the entire incident.  He rushed to  

the spot and  first removed the injured Annilal (PW.2)to

the village and thereafter conveyed the information about  

the incident to PW.6 Saheb Singh – his brother.  He also  

arranged for a tractor on which Annilal was carried to the  

hospital at Narsinghpur about 20 k.m. away and the  first  

information  report  was  lodged  in  the  police  station  

Narsinghpur at about 2.30 p.m. The Investigating Officer  

thereafter  reached  the  place  of  incident  and  made  the  

necessary inquiries and also sent the dead body for its  

post-mortem  examination.   The  post-mortem  examination  

revealed a large number of pellet injuries on the person of  

the  deceased.   Rammilan  was  also  arrested  and  on  his  

disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act a  

muzzle loading shot gun was seized along with pellets, gun  

powder and brass metal caps.

During the course of the trial Annilal(PW.2) did not  

support the prosecution as he was  equally related to the

complainant as well as the accused party.  The prosecution  

accordingly relied  on the statement of PW.5-Chandan Singh  

and  PW.6-Saheb Singh, as also the medical evidence.  The  

Trial Court however found that the evidence of PW.2 partly  

supported   the  other  evidence   inasmuch  that  he  had  

admitted his  presence and that of Chandan Singh at the  

time of the incident. The Trial Court also noted that  

-3-

as the charge against the accused was under Sections 302,  

307,  148  and  149  of  the  IPC,  all  the  accused  

(notwithstanding the fact that they had not fired either at

the injured or the deceased) were liable to be roped in on  

a charge of murder.  The Trial Court accordingly convicted  

all  the  accused  under  Sections  302  and  307  read  with  

Section 149 and sentenced them to undergo several terms of  

imprisonment; all the sentences to run concurrently.   

An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the  

High Court and during the pendency of the appeal Babulal,  

one of the main accused is said to have died.  The High  

Court vide its judgment dated 11th September 2007 which has  

been impugned before us dismissed the appeal on facts and  

findings similar to ones recorded by the Trial Court.  It  

is in this background that the matter is before us and  

after grant of leave and has been heard by us today.

Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the  

appellants-Prahlad, Dullam and Hukum in Crl.A. Nos. 146-

147/2008 at the very outset pointed out that Annilal (PW.2)

having disowned the prosecution story,  the entire story  

hinged on the statement of PW.5 and that as there was no  

evidence  to  suggest  that  the  appellants  had  caused  any  

injury to either of the victims although they were armed  

with lathis, clearly ruled out their participation.  He has  

-4-

also urged that the fact that the parties appeared to be at  

logger heads on account of election rivalries was said to  

be the reason for murder but as per the statement of Saheb  

Singh (PW.6),  the election dispute was between Gendalal-

the father of the Rammilan and the deceased but he had

subsequently withdrawn his nomination form, and as such the  

dispute no longer existed.   He has also pointed out that  

it is by now well settled that in the case of a solitary  

witness  the  evidence  of  that  witness  had  to  be  wholly  

credible  before  the  conviction  could  be  recorded  

thereunder.   

Mr.  V.P.  Apan,  the  learned  counsel  representing  

Rammilan  the  appellant  in  Crl.A.No.  1800/2008,  has  in  

addition  referred  to  the  defence  evidence  of  Sita  Ram  

(DW.1)  the Contractor at the river crossing who testified  

that he had not seen any of the accused and only Annilal  

had been present and he had told him that some incident had  

taken place.  

We  have  considered  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  We  

must emphasis that the evidence of Chandan Singh (PW.5) is

wholly  reliable.  The  First  Information  Report  had  been  

recorded in the police station 20 k.m. away within 2 hours  

of  the  incident.   The  very  spontaneity   of  the  FIR  

indicates  that   Chandan  Singh  had  been  present  at  the  

murder site.  Likewise Sahab Singh (PW.6) who had arranged  

-5-

the  tractor to take Annilal to the police station clearly  

supports the view that Chandan Singh had been present at  

the  site  and  the  two  had  carried  the  injured  to  the  

hospital.  Annilal,  too  supported  the  prosecution  to  the  

extent that he admitted the presence of PW.5 at the time of  

incident.  The  medical  evidence   also  supports  the  eye-

witnesses account.  It is the admitted case that Babulal

and Rammilan were both armed with muzzle loading 12 bore  

shotguns which could have caused the injuries  found on the  

person of the deceased as well as on Annilal (PW.2).  Some  

arguments had been occasioned before the courts below with  

regard to the distance from which shots had been fired. The  

Courts have found that the shots had been fired from a  

short distance.   We must however emphasis that where the  

weapon  and  ammunition  used  is  of   uncertain  make  and  

quality   the  normal  pellet  pattern  based  on  standard  

weapons and ammunition, cannot be applied with accuracy.  

The distance from which the shots have been fired cannot  

therefore have the effect of dislodging a credible eye-

witness account in such a case.

The appellants Prahlad, Hukum Singh and Dullam were  

armed with lathis which had not been used by them in any  

manner and the only allegation against them is that they

had  exhorted  their   co-accused  to  fire  at  the  opposite  

party. We are therefore of the opinion that the possibility  

that these three accused have been roped in on account of  

animosity cannot be ruled out and we must give them the  

benefit of doubt on that score.  

-6-

The appeal of Rammilan i.e. Crl. A. No. 1180/2008 is  

dismissed  whereas  Crl.  Appeal  Nos.  146-147/2008  are  

allowed.   The  accused  –  appellants  Prahlad,  Dullam  and  

Hukum are said to be  in custody. They shall be released  

forthwith  if  not  required  in  connection  with  any  other  

case.

Fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at Rs.7,000/-.   

                   .................J.         (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                                         ....................J.

                                 (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New  

Delhi, July 19, 2011.