Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1415 of 2007

DEV SINGH & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

 STATE OF M.P.    .....   RESPONDENT

O R D E R

  1. Sixteen persons in all were sent up for trial  

for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149,  

326/149 and 324/149 and were sentenced accordingly for  

various terms of imprisonment.  The incident happened  

at about 5:00p.m. on the 12th of November, 1997, in the  

Grain Market at Rajgarh.  As per the allegations, the  

16 accused who were armed with weapons such as knives,  

swords, farsas and lathis had pursuant to their common  

object committed the murders of Ganga Ram and Chain  

Singh.  A First Information Report, Exhibit P-51, was  

lodged  at  Police  Station  Rajgarh  by  PW  13  Babulal  

himself an injured witness.  As a consequence of the  

FIR, the Investigating Officer reached the place of  

incident and found that in addition to Babulal there  

were several other injured persons as well they being  

Gore Lal PW 14,  Prem Singh PW 20, Kalabai PW-15, the

Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 2

wife of PW 4, and Lalita Bai, sister of PW 1.  The  

motive for the incident was that Kalabai had been raped  

by some of the appellants and Ratanlal which had led to  

the  incident.   The  trial  court  examined  the  entire  

evidence  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  

participation  of  nine  of  the  accused  was  somewhat  

uncertain and their involvement could not be spelt out  

beyond reasonable doubt.  The trial court, accordingly,  

acquitted  nine  of  the  accused.   The  matter  was  

thereafter taken in appeal by the accused.  The High  

Court,  has,  by  the  impugned  judgment,  allowed  the  

appeal  qua  Hari  Singh  and  Raghunath  Singh  sons  of  

Girdhari Lal, and has ordered their acquittal as well  

whereas the appeals of Dev Singh, Bansilal, Ratan Lal,  

Kailash, Kamal Singh and Devi Singh aforesaid have been  

dismissed.  Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, the learned counsel  

for the appellants was not present when these appeals  

last came up.  We had then requested Ms. V. Mohana,  

Advocate to assist us as an Amicus Curiae.  

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  Amicus  Curiae  on  

behalf of the appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati the  

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-State  of  Madhya  

Pradesh.  We see from the evidence that it is based  

primarily  on  the  statement  of  the  three  injured  

witnesses.  It is also apparent from the record that

Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 3

three  of  the  accused  i.e.  Dev  Singh,  Bansilal  and  

Kailash also sustained injuries.  Their presence cannot  

be doubted under any circumstances.  Their plea that as  

their injuries had not been explained a doubt was cast  

on the prosecution story has been rejected by the High  

Court by holding that the injuries suffered by them  

were  so  miniscule  and  so  insignificant   that  the  

prosecution was not called upon to explain as to how  

they had been caused.   We also see that all the eye  

witnesses have supported the involvement not only of  

the  three  appellants  mentioned  above  but  even  of  

Kailash and Kamal Singh.  The medical evidence also  

suggests that the weapons that they were carrying i.e.  

swords and farsas had been used to cause the injuries  

on the deceased.  As a matter of fact Hari Singh and  

Raghunath Singh have both been acquitted by the High  

Court as they were said to have been carrying lathis  

and no lathi injury had been found on the dead body.  

Ms. V. Mohana, the learned counsel for the appellants  

has, however, argued that the appellants herein were  

placed in the same situation as the ones who had been  

acquitted by the trial court and by the High Court and  

as such the appellants ought to have been given the  

same benefit of doubt.  We are unable to accept this  

submission for the reason that the presence of three of

Crl.A. No. 1415 of 2007 4

the appellants is admitted and all five eye witnesses  

had clearly supported the prosecution version qua them.  

We also see that the medical evidence fully supports  

the ocular testimony.  Deceased Ganga Ram had suffered  

as many as seven injuries and Chain Singh ten injuries  

and all of them were incised cutting wounds.

3. We  are  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  no  

interference  is  called  for  in  this  appeal.   It  is,  

accordingly, dismissed.

4. The fee of the Amicus is fixed at ` 7,000/-.

    .........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI APRIL 13, 2011.