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
RDER
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
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
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
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
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.
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.