JAYENDRA SINGH Vs STATE OF M.P.
Bench: H.L. DATTU,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000534-000534 / 2009
Diary number: 4128 / 2008
Advocates: VIJAY PANJWANI Vs
C. D. SINGH
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