MATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 425

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI

Case summary

302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life, and acquitted them of the offence u/s.

Judgment text

MATHURA PRASHAD AND ANR. v. ~ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - OCTOBER 4, 1991 '1) [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ. ) Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136--Criminal appeal-Concurrent findings of fact--lnterference by Supreme Court--Circumstances indicoted. Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302134-Conviction under -Appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court in appeal-Non-inclusion of appellant's names in the paper wherein deceased wrote the name ofassailant and inquest report-Inconsistency of witness--Evidence on appellant's participation~eld guilt of the appellants-accused not proved. According to the prosecution, when the deceased a petition-writer, was sleeping in a room with his wife (PW. 19) on the ill-fated night, he ... ~ heard someone knocking at the door. The deceased switched on the light and opened the door. The accused· (A. 1 and A. 2) entered his room. They whipped up their knives and gave stab wounds; one on the chest, another on the back while bending.

They also slapped and fisted the deceased. It was further stated that the second appellant (A 5) caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the wall repeatedly. PW 19 tried to save her husband but she was pushed aside. During the course of the '"'( occurrence; a gold 'PUTRI' which PW 19 was wearing, was attempted to be snatched away from her. The eldest daughter of the deceased, PW 1, who was sleeping in room on the first floor, on hearing the cry, got down and saw the appellants and the other accused leaving her father's room. The appellants while running away took with them a box containing some clothes and other articles belonging to PW 1and chained the doors in such a way that the other inmates of the house could not reach the spot.. The deceased's son, PW 3, who was sleeping in another room reached the spot.

PW 15, a tenant in an adjoining room on hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out of his room but he could not do so as the house was chained from outside. He came to the spot after the door was opened. All the witnesses saw bleeding injuries on the body of the deceased who was unable to speak. PW 3, at the instance of his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of paper on which the injured deceased wrote 'Guiab Chand' and thereafter became unconscious, and he was then taken to the Government hc,spital where he succumbed to bis injuries. The two appellants (A4 and AS before the Trial Court) along with three others were tried u/s. 302 IPC or u/s. 302/149 and u/s. 396, for causing the death of the deceased, accused No. 2 stabbing the deceased with a knife and the rest of the accused assaulting him and for committing the offence ofdacoity. The Trial Court found the third accused not guilty of any of the charges and acquitted him but C(;nvicted others u/s.

302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life, and acquitted them of the offence u/s. 396 IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The present two appellants (A4, AS) flied the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court through special leave. The other two accused (Al and A2). preferred a separate special leave petition, which was dismissed by this Court. Allowing the appeal of the two accused (A4, AS), this Court, HELD: 1. The powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are wide but in criminal appeals, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, save in exceptional circumstances. [430 HJ 2. Within the restrictions,-imposed by itself, this C~urt bas the undoubted power to interfere even With. findings of the fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those findings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.

[431 CJ Arunachalam v. PSR Sadha11antha11, [1979) 2 . SCC 297; State of MAlHURA PRASAD v. STAIB 427 Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, (1958) SCR 580; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249, referred to. 3. 01 The deceased was a petition writer and so in that capacity he was very well conversant as to how to draft a complaint. He asked for a pen and paper, and wrote the name, 'Guiab Chand', evidently thereby saying that Guiab Chand was the. assailant. The deceased had not written any other name except the name of Guiab Chand. Now the explanation given by the prosecution is that the deceased became unconscious after writing this one name Guiab Chand, thereby saying had he not become ·unconscious, probably he would have written the name of other assailants · also. [431 E-F) 3. 02.

PW 19 the wife of the deceased, was sleeping in tbe same room in which the deceased was sleeping did not inform either PW 1 or PW 2 the names of the assailants but she gave the names only to PW 3. , her son. It transpires from the evidence of PW 19 that after PW1 went to fetch the rickshaw, PW 3 asked his father as to who had assailed him and that it was only thereafter the injured deceased wrote the name of Guiab Chand on a piece of paper. Before the deceased wrote the name of Guiab Chand on a picl:e of paper given by his son, PW 3, no one including PW 19 came forward with the names of the assailants. [431 F-G] 3. 03. The evidence of PW 2 and 19 indicated that PW 3 was not informed of the names of the assailants before his father (the deceased) wrote the name of Guiab Chand. Till the deceased wrote the name ofGuiab Chand on a piece of paper evidently PW 3 did not know as to who the ~ assailant or assailants was/were. [432 F] 3. 04.

The Courts below have not approached this significant aspect of this salient feature in the proper perspective. [432 G] 3. 05. In the inquest report there is a specific averment that the two assailants namely, Guiab Singh (A. 2) and Guiab Chand (A. 1) stabbed the deceased with knives which case alone fits in with the earlier statements of PWs 2 and 19 as well as the version of the deceased in Exh. P. 50. If really the names of the two appellants had been mention. ed by the witnesses, those names also would have been specifically mentioned in Exh. P. 24, the inquest report. [433 B-C] 3. 06. It is in evidence that both t'1e appellants were present at the scene of occurrence when the police constable came, but none pointed out to the police that these two appellants also participated in the crime. The prosecution bas not satisfactorily established the guilt of the two appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. (433 F, 434 BJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 624of1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27. 3. 1979 of the Madhya 'r· . Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1977. Frank Anthony, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain and R. V. Singh for the Appellants. U. N. Bachhavat, Uma Nath Singh and J. M. Sood for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered: These two appeliants, namely, Mathura Prashad and Binda Prashad ). -- have preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 498/77 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench. These two appellants (A4 and A5 before the Trial Court) along with three others, namely, Guiab Chand and Guiab Singh and Laxman Rao (who were arrayed as accused Nos. 1to3) took their trial on the accusation that on the night intervening 5/6. 12. 75 at about 12. 30 a. m.

at Sarkanda, Bilaspur within the limits of Bilaspur Police Station, Civil Lines intentionally caused the death of the deceased, Keshav Singh by Guiab Singh stabbing the deceased with a knife and the rest of the people assaulting him and that in the course of the same transaction, they also committed the offence of dacoity. Under the above accusation, they were tried for offences. punishable u/s 302 IPC in the alternative u/s 302 IPC read with 149 IPC and also for offence u/s 396 IPC. The Trial Court found the third accused, namely, Laxman Rao not guilty of any of the charges and consequently, acquitted him but convicted these two appellants and accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are not before us U! s 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of. them to undergo imprisonment for life. However, the Trial Court acquitted the appellants and the other two accused of the offence u /s 396 IPC.

On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the convicted accused namely, these two appellants, Guiab Chand and Guiab Singh filed MATIIURA PRASAD v. SI'ATE 429 an appeal before the High Court which for the reasons mentioned in its judgment, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. Challenging this judgment, these two appellants filed their SLP No. 1902/79 and the other two convicted accused, namely, Guiab Chand and Guiab Singh (Al and A2) filed a separate petition in SLP (Crl. ) No. 1435n9. This Court by an order dated 29. 10. 79 granted leave so far as SLP filed by these two appellants, but dis~issed the SLP filed by the first and the second accused namely, Guiab Chand and Guiab·Singh. Hence, the present appeal by these two appellants.

The facts of the case which led to the filing of this appeal are well set out in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and hence we think that it is not necessary for us to proliferate the same except to refer to certain salient features relevant for the disposal of this appeal. The deceased Keshav Singh was a petition writer. He was living in his house at Sarkanda in Bilaspur with his wife Smt. Phatokan Bai (PW 19) and two daughters, namely, Anjani Bai (PW 1) and Shail Kumati (PW 2) and his son, Ram Kumar (PW 3) who was younger to PW 1 and elder to PW 2. There were some tenants in different parts of that house. The ac- ··- ~ cused Guiab Chand occupied a portion of that house as a tenant, but vacated the same about two months before this occurrence due to frequent quarrels between the children and ladies of the families belonging to Guiab Chand and that of the deceased.

It is alleged that the wife of Guiab Chand had complained about some alleged misbehaviour of the deceased with her. According to the prosecution, when the deceased was sleeping in a . room with his wife on the ill-fated night, he heard someone knocking at the door. On this, the deceased switched on the light and opened the door. This appellant and the other accused entered his room. Guiab Chand and Guiab Singh whipped up their knives and gave stab wounds; one on the chest, another on the back while bending. These two appellants slapped and fisted the deceased. It is further stated that the second appellant herein, namely, Binda Singh caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the wall repeatedly. PW 19 tried to save her husband but she was pushed aside. During the course of the occurrence, a gold 'PUTRI' which PW 19 was wearing, was attempted to be snatched away from her.

--1,- PW 1 who was sleeping in aroom on the first floor, on hearing the cry, got down and saw these appellants and the other accused leaving her father's room. It is alleged that the appellant while running away took with them a box containing some clothes and other articles belonging to PW 1. According to the prosecution, the appellants had chained the doors in such a way that the other inmates of the house could not reach the spot. · After the appellants had fled away, PW 1 opened the doors. PW 3 who was sleeping in another room reached the spot. PW 15 was a tenant in an adjoining room and he on hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to come out of his room but he could not do so as the house was chained from outside. Therefore, PW 15 shouted for opening the latches of the door. He came to the spot after the door was opened.

One Ramji Dayal who seemed to have played an iμiportant role in the prosecution, also reached the spot but he has not been examined by the prosecution as a witness. All the witnesses saw bleeding injuries on the body of Keshav Singh (the deceased herein) who was unable to' speak. PW 3, at the instance of his deceased . father brought a pen and a piece of paper on which the injured Keshav Singh wrote 'Guiab· Chand' and thereafter became unconscious. The injured Keshav Singh was then taken to the Government hospital at Bilaspur where he succumbed to his injuries. The medical officer sent a requisition Ex. P 14 to the police station. PW 19, by then, lodged the first information report Exh. P 43 at about 3. 00 a. m. on 6. 12. 75 before PW 21. PW 21 held inquest and prepared the inquest report Exh. P 24. During the course of the investigation, he has seized Ex. P. 50, the paper on which the deceased had written the name 'Guiab Chand' on being produced by PW 3.

PW 9, the medical officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, found two stab wounds and one incised wound on the person of the deceased. PW 8, another medical officer examined accused Guiab Singh and found on his person a small incised wound at the base of the index finger on the palmer aspect. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against all the accused persons. As aforementioned, the trial court convicted the four accused inclusive of these two appellants which conviction was confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by these two appellants. Of the witnesses examined, PWs 1, 2 and 19 speak about the participation of the appellants in the perpetration of this heinous crime.

No doubt both the Courts below have concurrently found that these two appellants and the other two accused 1 and 2 were responsible for causing the death of the deceased and consequently convicted and so, the question would be whether this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, will be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. ·This Court in Balam R01i1 v. State of U. P. (1975) 3 SCC 219 at 227 held, that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are. wide but in criminal appeals, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. The