NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1586  OF 2009

Suresh Singh & Anr.     ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Madhya Pradesh    ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  725 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1342 of 2010)

Ummed Singh & Anr.     ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Madhya Pradesh    ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1342 of 2010.

1

2. These appeals are filed by the accused persons

against the final judgment and order dated

24.04.2007 passed  by the  High Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh Bench at Gwalior  in Criminal Appeal No.

109 of 1998 whereby the High Court disposed of the

appeal filed by the appellants herein and modified

the order dated 20.02.1998 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No.78 of

1993  by reducing the sentence of the appellants

passed under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal

Code,  1860  (hereinafter  referred to as “IPC”) from

seven years to five years and affirmed the sentences

and fine awarded under other sections.  

3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on

06.12.1992,  when  Keshav  Singh­Complainant(PW­

10) was taking the water to his field from the tube

well of Jairam, the appellants asked him that why

he is taking  water through  their ‘Medh’.  Keshav

2

Singh replied that  he  will not take the  water in

future.  Not satisfied with the reply of Keshav Singh,

the  appellants  came along  with  Rambaran armed

with Axe and Ummed Singh armed with Bhala and

Ramhet armed with Lathi and started abusing him.

In the meantime, Rambaran went ahead and

inflicted an  Axe blow on the head of Keshav Singh

whereas Ramhet inflicted Lathi blow on the wrist of

his right hand and also on the right peddle of leg.

Thereafter, the brothers of  Keshav Singh, namely,

Ujjagar Singh and Rai Singh came there, who were

also watering on their fields which were nearer to

the place of occurrence.   Inder Singh was also

taking water to his field, therefore, Rambaran

(deceased) inflicted him a blow with Axe on his head

and Ramhet also gave him a Lathi blow on his head.

Thereafter  Sobran armed with  Lathi  and Suresh

armed with  Bhala came there.    Suresh inflicted a

3

blow with Bhala and Sobran inflicted a lathi blow on

the shoulder of Keshav Singh.   Suresh had given a

Bhala blow on the back of Shyam Singh.  Rambaran

had given an axe blow on the head of Shyam Singh.

Kali Charan and Mahesh came there for sorting out

the matter. There was a free fight between the two

groups.

4. On the same day, i.e., 06.12.1992, Keshav

Singh   lodged a report at the Police Station, Umri,

Dist. Bhind against the appellants herein which was

registered as FIR No.131/92.   The injured Keshav

Singh, Ujjagar Singh, Shyam Singh, Rai Singh and

Inder Singh were sent for the treatment to the

Government  Hospital,  Umri.   Later on  Rambaran

succumbed to his injuries.

5. For  the same  incident, the appellants herein

also lodged a report at the Police  Station,  Umri,

4

Dist., Bhind, which was registered as FIR

No.132/92 dated 06.12.1992.  

6. The police investigated both the FIRs and filed

cross case  against the appellants  under  Sections

148, 307 and 323/149 IPC  whereas against the

complainant’s side FIR (No.131/1992) under

Sections 148, 302, 149, 325/149, 324, 323/149

IPC.

7. The Additional Sessions judge registered S.T.

No.78/1993 against the appellants herein and S.T.

No.79 of 1993 against Keshav Singh and others

under  Sections  148,  302/149,  325/149,  324 and

323/149  IPC.   Both the  trials were  tried together

and by order dated 20.02.1998 in S.T. No.78/1993,

all the appellants were convicted under Section 148

IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years, Suresh Singh and

Ummed  Singh  were convicted  under Section 307

5

IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years and a fine of

Rs.2000/­ each, Ramhet and Sobran were convicted

under Section 307/149 IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and

a  fine  of  Rs.2000/­  each,  all the  appellants  were

convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and

further convicted under Section 323/149 IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months.   All the sentenced  were  directed to run

concurrently.

8. The  Additional  Sessions  Judge  convicted the

other party in S.T. No.79/1993 , namely, Rai Singh,

Keshav Singh, Ujjagar Singh, Inder Singh, Gyan

Singh and Shyam Singh for the offences punishable

under  Sections  148,  302/149,  323/149,  325 and

323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

6

imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC,

life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC,

rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section

323/149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years

under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment

for six months and a fine of Rs.2000/­ each under

Section 323 IPC.  

9. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and

sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

the  appellants filed  appeal  being  Criminal  Appeal

No.  109 of  1998 whereas the  opposite  party filed

Criminal  Appeal  No.149 of 1998  before the  High

Court.

10. By impugned judgment  dated  24.04.2008 in

Criminal Appeal No.109/1998, the High Court

disposed of the appeal and   modified the order of

the Additional Sessions Judge by reducing the

sentence of the appellants herein under Section

7

307/149 IPC from  seven years to five years and

affirmed other sentences and fine.

11. The High Court by judgment dated 03.04.1998

in Criminal Appeal (No.149/1998) filed by the

Complainant’s side  partly  allowed  the  appeal  and

released the appellants therein on already

undergone sentence period.   

12. Against the said judgment, the appellants

herein filed special leave petition before this Court.

This Court by order dated 14.05.2010 dismissed the

special leave petition.  

13. Hence, aggrieved by impugned judgment dated

24.04.2007, the appellants have preferred these

appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

14. It  is a settled principle of  law that when the

Courts below have recorded concurrent findings

against the accused person which are based on due

appreciation  of  evidence, this  Court  under  Article

8

136 of the Constitution of India would be slow to

interfere in such concurrent findings and would not

appreciate the evidence  de novo  unless it is  prima

facie  shown that both the  Courts below did not

either consider the relevant piece of evidence or

there exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the

findings recorded by both the Courts below etc.  

15. We,  however,  made endeavour to  peruse the

evidence with a view to find out as to whether the

concurrent findings of both the Courts below have

any kind of infirmity or/and whether the concurrent

findings are capable of  being  legally  and factually

sustainable or need to be reversed.  Having gone

through the evidence, we are of the view that the

findings are legally and factually sustainable in law.

16. On  perusal of the evidence adduced by the

parties, there is no reason to disbelieve the version

of the injured eyewitnesses inasmuch as we are not

9

able to notice any kind of perversity or contradiction

or inconsistency in their version.  

17. The High Court, however, while rightly

affirming the conviction reduced the sentence from

seven years to five years, and, in our opinion, this

relief of reduction of sentence from seven years to

five years for an offence punishable under Section

307  IPC  to the  appellants is  well justified  having

regard to the facts situation arising in the case.

Therefore,  we do  not find any ground to further

reduce the sentence. It is more so when we find that

the appellants had used deadly weapons for

inflicting injuries on the members of the

complainant’s party as detailed in the facts set out

above.

18. We are not impressed by the submission of the

learned counsel for the appellants when it was

urged that the appellants had inflicted injuries on

1

the  members of the complainant’s party in their

right of private defense.  First, this submission did

not find favour to the two courts below and, in our

view, rightly; Second, it being a question of fact, we

are not inclined to again appreciate the evidence so

as  to reverse  the concurrent  findings of fact;  and

lastly, this does not appear to be a case where the

appellants can be absolved fully from the

commission of the offence in question in their right

of private defense against the members of the

complainant’s party.  

19. In our view, there is an evidence adduced by

the prosecution to prove  that  the appellants were

armed with the deadly weapons and were the

aggressors in hitting the abovenamed persons with

the weapons due to which injured persons suffered

several injuries.

1

20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are

of the considered view that neither any case of

acquittal and nor any case of further reduction of

jail  sentence than what has been awarded by the

High  Court is  made out in favour of any of the

appellants in both the appeals.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

fail  and are accordingly dismissed being devoid of

any merit.              

                         …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

………...................................J.     [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi; May 11, 2018  

1