Jabar Singh v. State of M.P.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2010-08-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is modified to Section 326 IPC. The appellant is sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000; in default of payment of fine, six months additional RI. Bail bonds are revoked and the appellant is to be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed (in part); conviction under 302 IPC modified to 326 IPC; sentence as stated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jabar Singh

Respondents

State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Lakhan Singh Chauhan
• Dr. Kailash Chand

Counsels for Respondents

• Vibha Datta Makhija

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a statutory appeal challenging the High Court’s order convicting Jabar Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of Sarnam Singh in November 1984. The prosecution case rests on the eyewitness accounts of several persons, including the deceased’s wife, and on four dying declarations recorded during the course of the investigations by Executive Magistrates and doctors. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the basis that identification was doubtful and because the dying declarations did not conclusively establish murder. The High Court, however, reversed the trial court’s acquittal for Jabar Singh and convicted him under Section 302 IPC, holding that the evidence, including dying declarations, established a clear case of murder. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel contended that the medical evidence indicated the death was not the immediate consequence of gunshot injuries but of peritonitis arising from improper care and treatment, which could not support a conviction of murder under 302 IPC, at best warranting a conviction under 326 IPC. The Court, while acknowledging the role of medical testimony, ultimately upheld the conviction for murder but modified it to a conviction under Section 326 IPC, altering the sentence to five years’ RI with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and ordered custody to serve the sentence with bail bonds revoked.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 326 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel contends that the medical evidence shows the deceased died due to peritonitis arising from improper care and treatment, not the gunshot injuries. Consequently, a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained; at most, the appellant would be liable for a conviction under Section 326 IPC. The defense emphasizes the lack of direct causal link between the gunshot wounds and death, highlighting the four dying declarations and eyewitness accounts, yet argues that the medical opinion undermines a murder finding under 302.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the totality of evidence—eyewitness testimony by several persons including the wife of the deceased and four dying declarations—clearly establishes a murder; the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was warranted, and the medical evidence, though suggestive of contributory factors, does not negate the prima facie case of murder under 302 IPC.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1144 A ## JABAR SINGH _v._ STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1464 of 2003) B AUGUST 12, 2010 # **[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]** _PENAL CODE, 1860:_ c _s. 326_ - _Victim died fourteen days after sustaining gun-_ - - _shot injuries Acquittal by trial court Conviction by High Court uls 302_ - _HELD: No fault could be found with the finding_ - _of guilt against' accused recorded by High Court There is_ 0 _[on ][record ][the eye witness account ][of ][several ][persons ] including the wife of the deceased, and the four dying declarations recorded at the_ instanc~ _of the deceased before several independent persons including an Executive_ - _Magistrate Report of doctor that gun-shot injuries were not the immediate cause of death of the victim and he died due_ E _to peritonitis which could not be attributed to the gun-shot_ - _injury However, there is the categorical medical evidence that the victim died due to lack of care by his attendants as he had not been properly treated in the hospital_ - _In this view_ - _of the matter, a case uls 302 cannot be spelt out Accused_ F _convicted u/s 326 with a sentence of_ 5 _years RI and a fine of_ - _Rs._ 5, _000 Dying declaration._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal No. 1464 of 2003. G From the Judgment & Order dated 01.8.2003 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 1990. H 1144 1145 ## JABAR SINGH _v._ STATE OF M.P. Lakhan Singh Chouhan, Dr. Kailash Chand for the A Appellant. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** This is a statutory appeal challenging the order of the High Court whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. As per the prosecution story one Badan Singh, a cousin of Sarnam Singh (deceased in the present case) had been murdered about 25 years ago whereafter lnder Singh and Ramjit Singh, sons of Badan Singh had sold their land to the deceased and had left the village. The house of Badan Singh was also being occupied by Sarnam Singh. The relatives of Badan Singh suspected that one Kedar Singh was responsible for his death. On 11th November, 1984, the dead body of Kedar Singh was seen floating in the canal and the accused in the present matter suspected that Sarnam Singh and some others connected with him were responsible for his death. On 13th November, 1984 at about 8 . '9 P.M. the accused, all armed with fire arms, entered the house of Sarnam Singh whereafter Jabar Singh, the appellant herein, fired a shot at him which hit him on the navel and exited from the right buttock. Sarnam Singh, grievously injured, managed to run away towards his fields where he fell down. The other accused remained standing on the Chabutra and continued firing at Sarnam Singh though no shot hit him. Sarnam Singh was removed on a Bullock ·cart to police station Mehgaon by Sultan (PW.2), Urned Singh (PW.5), Munnalal (PW.1), shiv Naraya·n (PW.8) and Chhote Singh (PW.10) where Sarnam Singh himself lodged the FIR at 0.45 hours on 14th November, 1984. Dr. F.C.Bansal (PW.4) also examined Sarnam Singh and noted several injuries on his D E F G H 1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A person. He also arranged for the recording of his dying declaration on which Amrish Shrivastava (PW.15) an Executive Magistrate, was deputed and he recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P .12). Sarnam Singh was also referred to the Gwalior Hospital where Dr. C.S.Jaiswal (PW.16) recorded another B dying declaration (Ex.P.13). Sarnam Singh succumbed to his injuries on 28th November, 1984 where after his dead body was subjected to a post-mortem by Dr. R.C. Upadhyaya (PW.14). The Trial Court on a perusal of the evidence as also the C four dying declarations referred to above held that the accused had not been properly identified and as there appeared to be long enmity between the parties, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. The accused were accordingly acquitted. D > The State of Madhya Pradesh thereafter filed an appeal in the High·Court. The High Court maintained the acquittal of four of the accused but reversed the judgment of the Trial Court with respect to Jabar Singh and convicted him under Section E 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal has been filed by Jabar Singh impugning the judgment of the High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties very F carefully and gone through the record. We are of the opinion that no fault could be found with the conviction of the appellant. In the light of the eye witnesses' account of several persons including the wife of the deceased and the four dying declarations recorded at the instance of the deceased before G several independent persons including an Executive Magistrate, we have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the appellant. Mr. Lakhan Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the H appellant, has however argued that in the light of the medical JABAR SINGH _v._ STATE OF M.P. 1147 evidence it was apparent that a case of murder was not spelt A out. He has highlighted that the incident had happened on 13th November, 1984 and the injured Sarnam Singh had died after 14 days thereafter and it was clear from the medical evidence of Dr. Bansal (PW.4) and Dr. Upadhayay (PW.14) that the gun shot injuries were not the immediate cause of his death and B he had died due to peritonitis which could not be attributed to the gun shot injury as it had set in on account of improper care and handling by the attendants and the hospital staff. Dr. Bansal who examined Sarnam Singh on 14th November, 1984, specifically stated that the injury suffered by Sarnam Singh was c not fatal to life. Dr. Upadhayay was equally categoric when he said that the death would ordinarily not have been caused as the deceased had died due to lack of care by the attendants of the deceased and as he had not been properly treated in the hospitaL He also admitted that in the postmortem report he D had no where observed that the gun shot injuries suffered by the deceased would have cau~e his death in the normal course of nature. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that a case under Section 302 cannot be spelt out against the appellant and he would at the most be liable for conviction under Sec.326 of the IPC. We accordingly modify his conviction from E Section 302 of the IPC to one under Section 326 of the IPC and impose a sentence of R.I. 0f five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to six months R.J. E The appeal is allowed to the above extent. F The appellant is on bail in view of the orders of this Court. His bail bonds are revoked. He shall to be taken into custody forthwith, to serve out his sentence. R.P. Appeal allowed.