| Citation | (2022) 7 SCC 157 |
| Date of Judgment | June 3, 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeals No. 764 of 2021 with 765 of 2021 |
| Appellant | Mahendra Singh |
| Respondent | State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Bench | B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ |
| Referred | Section 148, 149 and 302 of IPC, 1860 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case arose from an incident that took place on 12 June 1994 in the village of Budhor, Madhya Pradesh. The victim, Bhagat Singh, was returning from Basoda with his brother, Amol Singh, and a friend, Akhe Singh. When they reached the village of Ratanpur, they were stopped by a group of men, including the three accused persons, Mahendra Singh, Pritam Singh, and Shambhu Singh. The accused persons attacked Bhagat Singh with sticks and stones. Bhagat Singh was hit on the head and died on the spot. Amol Singh and Akhe Singh managed to escape. Amol Singh filed a complaint with the police, and the three accused persons were arrested.
The Trial Court rejected the defense’s arguments and convicted the three accused persons of murder and rioting. The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons. Hence this appeal.
ISSUES
- Whether the testimony of the eyewitness, Amol Singh, was reliable and credible?
- Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case?
- Whether the argument of the accused persons that they were falsely implicated in the case was valid?
ARGUMENTS
Appellant
- The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted the Testimony given by Amol Singh falls under the category of “wholly unreliable” witness as Amol Singh is the real brother of the deceased and therefore his testimony has to be scrutinized with greater care, caution, and circumspection. Therefore, conviction on the basis of such testimony could not be sustainable. He relied on the judgment of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras.
- He further submitted that a delayed FIR would create doubt about the trustworthiness of the respondent’s case.
Respondent
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the learner trial court as well as the High Court have rightly relied on the testimony of Amol Singh. It is submitted that merely because of a minor contradiction/inconsistency cropped in the evidence of the witness, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the truthfulness of the testimony of such a witness. He relied on the judgement of Shakila Abdul Gaffar Khan v. Vasanth Raghunath Dhoble, State of A.P. v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy, and Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the three accused persons. The Court held that Amol Singh was a reliable witness because he was an eyewitness to the crime and he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. The Court also found that Amol Singh’s testimony was consistent with the other evidence in the case, such as the medical evidence.
The Court held that the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case because it showed that Bhagat Singh had died from head injuries, which were consistent with being hit with sticks and stones.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument of the accused persons that they were falsely implicated in the case. The Court held that there was no reason to doubt the testimony of Amol Singh and that the accused persons had failed to raise any reasonable doubt about their guilt.
Considering the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the three accused persons.
In my opinion, the fact that the medical evidence was not conclusive was not justified. The Court found that the injuries that Bhagat Singh sustained were consistent with being hit with sticks and stones, but it could not say for sure that this was the cause of death. I believe that it is important to have clear and conclusive evidence in a criminal case, and I am not sure that this was the case in this instance.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mahendra Singh vs. The State of M.P. is an important precedent for future cases involving murder. The Court’s decision makes it clear that the testimony of an eyewitness can be reliable even if the eyewitness is a close relative of the victim.
REFERENCE
This Article is written by Bejita Banerjee of Birla Global University, an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
