Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1786-1787  OF 2009

RAMVILAS                             ...Appellant Versus

STATE OF M.P.                                    ...Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1788-1789 OF 2009

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J  .                    

In  these  appeals,  the  appellants  challenge  the

correctness  of  the  judgment  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeals No.377 of

1995 and 481 of 1995 whereby the High Court confirmed the

conviction  and sentence  awarded to  the  appellants  by  the

trial  court  under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC,

324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and 148 IPC.  

1

Page 2

2. Case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.1991 at

about  7.00  O’clock  in  the  morning  at  village  Hathighat,

deceased-Bansilal had gone towards the riverside to attend

nature’s call.  One Harisingh Kachhi (PW-7), Jagdish (PW-13)

and Noor Khan (PW-9) came to the house of Narmada Prasad

(PW-3) and informed him that the accused-appellants were

assaulting  his  brother-Bansilal.  Narmada  Prasad  (PW-3)

immediately  rushed  to  the  spot  alongwith  them and  near

‘otla’ of Hardul Baba, he noticed that all the appellants armed

with  lethal  weapons  had  surrounded  his  brother-Bansilal.

Appellants Chhotelal, Kailash and Suresh were armed with

spears, appellant-Ramvilas was armed with pistol,  whereas

appellants Ramsingh and Gorelal  were carrying  lathis with

them.  When  Bansilal  tried  to  escape,  appellant-Ramvilas

fired  a  shot  from his  pistol  and  when  Bansilal  fell  down,

appellants Chhotelal and Kailash attacked him with spear on

his scalp and forehead.  When Narmada Prasad (PW-3) tried

to  intervene,  appellant-Kailash  attacked  Narmada  Prasad

with spear and caused injury below his right eye.  Then Uma

Bai (PW-5) sister of the deceased and Sona Bai-mother of the

2

Page 3

deceased tried to save Bansilal, the appellants Kailash and

Ram  Singh  also  attacked  them.  Appellant-Ramvilas

intimidated and threatened  the  persons present  there  and

said that if anybody would intervene, he would be shot dead.

The appellants gave repeated blows to Bansilal by spear and

lathis and then fled away.  Injured Bansilal was immediately

taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. On the

complaint lodged by Narmada Prasad (PW-3), brother of the

deceased,  FIR  was  registered  in  Criminal  Case  No.131  of

1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 IPC at PS

Nasirullahganj. After due investigation, the appellants were

prosecuted under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with Section

149, 324, 324 read with Section 149, 323 and 323 read with

Section 149 IPC.   

3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court

convicted the appellant-Ramvilas and other accused under

Sections  302  read  with  Section  149,  324,  323  read  with

Section 149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life

imprisonment and further imposed sentence of imprisonment

for other offences.  On appeal, the High Court confirmed the

3

Page 4

conviction  of  the  appellants  and  also  the  sentence  of

imprisonment imposed on each of them. These appeals assail

the correctness of  the impugned judgment.  On application

filed onbehalf of the appellants, the appeal was dismissed as

withdrawn qua the appellants Suresh (A1), Kailash (A2) and

Ram  Singh  (A4)  by  the  Chamber  Judge  Order  dated

18.02.2013.

4. We  have  heard  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Ajay  Veer

Singh, the learned counsel for the third appellant-Ramvilas

and  also  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State.  We

have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused

the evidence on record and also the impugned judgment.   

5. Conviction  of  the  appellant-Ramvilas  and  other

accused is based mainly on the evidence adduced by six eye

witnesses, namely, Narmada Prasad (PW3), Rekha Bai(PW-4),

Uma Bai (PW-5), Hari Singh (PW-7), Noor Khan (PW-9) and

Jagdish (PW-13) coupled with other corroborative evidence.

All  the  eye  witnesses  have  consistently  spoken  about  the

occurrence and the overt acts of the accused including the

appellant-Ramvilas.  Courts  below  have  recorded  the

4

Page 5

concurrent findings of  fact observing that the testimony of

eye witnesses is credible and trustworthy.  Deceased-Bansilal

had sustained as many as twenty six injuries.  Evidence of

eye witnesses is amply corroborated by medical evidence. By

perusal of the records, no cogent reasons are forthcoming to

disbelieve the testimony of the eye witnesses and we find no

reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by

the  courts  accepting  the  evidence  of  eye  witnesses  as

trustworthy.

6. In the incident, Narmada Prasad (PW-3) and Uma

Bai  (PW-5)  sister  of  the  deceased  sustained  injuries  and

Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 are the MLC Reports of Narmada Prasad

(PW-3) and Uma Bai (PW-5) respectively issued by Dr. S.K.

Dhoble (PW-10). Narmada Prasad (PW-3) and Uma Bai (PW-5)

being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place

of  occurrence  cannot  be  doubted.  Evidence  of  the  injured

witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and

convincing grounds are required to discard the evidence of

the  injured  witnesses.  We  do  not  find  any  ground  to

5

Page 6

disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses Narmada Prasad

(PW-3) and Uma Bai (PW-5).

7. Learned counsel  for  the  appellant  Mr.  Ajay  Veer

Singh contended that the presence of appellant-Ramvilas at

the scene of occurrence was doubtful as no ‘katta’ was seized

from him nor any gun shot injury was found on the person of

deceased-Bansilal.  As observed by the High Court all the eye

witnesses  have  spoken  in  one  voice  so  far  as  carrying  of

‘katta’ by appellant-Ramvilas and therefore his presence at

the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted merely because

no ‘katta’  was recovered from him.  It has come out in the

evidence that the appellant-Ramvilas had exhorted the other

accused  in  attacking  the  deceased  and  also  actually

participated in the attack. As pointed out by the courts below

that  the  appellant-Ramvilas  nowhere  pleaded  in  his

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was neither

present  at  the  scene  of  occurrence  nor  involved  in  the

incident.

8. The conviction of the appellant-Ramvilas is based

on  the  evidence  of  injured  witnesses  which  is  amply

6

Page 7

corroborated by the evidence of  eye witnesses and medical

evidence.  Conviction  of  the  appellant  is  based  on  proper

appreciation  of  evidence  and  courts  below  have  recorded

concurrent  findings  and  the  same  is  not  liable  to  be

interfered with in exercise of power under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.

9. These appeals are dismissed.    

…………………………J.                                                                     (T.S. THAKUR)       

…………………………J.     (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; August 18, 2015

7