STATE OF M.P v MAKHAN @ MADAN & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-10-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed; High Court's acquittal of the respondents upheld; no interference with the High Court judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

STATE OF M.P.

Respondents

MAKHAN @ MADAN
ORS

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.D. Singh
• Aditya Singh
• Sunny Choudhary

Counsels for Respondents

• S.K. Gambhir
• Dr. Kailash Chand
• Anil K. Sharma
• T.N. Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Supreme Court criminal appeal arising from a Madhya Pradesh High Court acquittal of respondents, including Makhan @ Madan, in a case of alleged murder and rioting under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC. The trial court convicted the accused for committing murder with the aid of an unlawful assembly and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a shorter term. The High Court reversed the conviction, acquitting the accused, after discarding the testimony of key eye witnesses on the ground of inconsistencies—particularly regarding the place of occurrence, timing, and the identification of the accused. The appellant State contends that eyewitness testimony by PW1 (the deceased’s wife) and PW5 was credible and should not have been discarded merely due to minor discrepancies or the presence of darkness; contrasting accounts between FIR and in-court statements were not fatal, and identification could be established by various factors beyond visual certainty. The respondents’ counsel support the High Court’s approach, emphasizing material contradictions and the lack of reliable identification. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the record, held that the High Court’s conclusions did not suffer from infirmity warranting interference, citing discrepancies but finding no basis to disturb the acquittal. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148; Section 302 read with Section 149

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant State submitted that the High Court erred in discarding the eye-witness evidence. PW1 (wife of the deceased) and PW5 testified to the assault, though their testimony contained discrepancies about the place of occurrence and the identity of the accused. PW2’s statement suggested difficulties in identification due to darkness, yet the prosecution urged that the overall corpus of eyewitness testimony, corroborated by the conduct of the parties and the sequence of events, should be sufficient to sustain conviction. The State contended that the High Court overemphasized minor inconsistencies and failed to consider circumstantial correlations that support identification and the discharge of the on-the-spot alarm and subsequent reporting.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the High Court correctly acquitted, as the eye-witnesses’ accounts contained significant contradictions—such as differing accounts of the place of occurrence, non-disclosure to police, and inability of PW2 to identify due to darkness. They emphasized non-identification in darkness and questioned the reliability of witnesses who altered statements about the accused’s involvement. In the view of the defense, these deficiencies undermined the prosecution’s case and justified upholding the acquittal. The respondents urged the Court to refrain from substituting its own assessment for that of the High Court where the evidence, taken as a whole, created reasonable doubt.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 507 A ## STATE OF M.P II. MAKHAN @ MADAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 46-47 of 2003) ' --\ OCTOBER 16, 2008 # [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] B _Penal Code, 1860;_ Ss. _148, 302 rlw_ s. _149:_ / -~ _Assault and murder by forming an unlawful assembly_ - _Deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted by accused persons_ - _F_ /. _R ._ ....: _Trial Court found accused persons guilty of committing offences punishable under_ Ss. _148 and 302 rlw_ s. _149 /PC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life etc._ - _Acquitted by High Court by discarding testimony of eye witnesses_ - _Correctness of_ - _Held: Correct_ - _There was discrepancy in the statement of witnesses as regards the place of occurrence and also the identity of accused persons_ - _Hence, no infirmity found in the impugned order warranting any interference_ - _Testimony of witnesses_ - _Reliance upon._ Respondents, accused persons, were convicted by the trial Court for committing murder of the deceased. The issue which arose for determination before the Supreme Court in this criminal appeal was as to whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused persons by discarding the evidence of relative eye witnesses. c D E F ## Dismissing the appeals, the Court _-4_ HELD: 1.1 The High Court with reference to evidence G of PW1, wife of the deceased, noted that in the First lnformation Report it was stated that the place of occurrence is Kanji House Bazar Bohalla but in court the witnesses stated that the accused persons had assaulted the de507 H H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 508 )..._ I A ceased by lathi and rod at the residence of PW 7, Sarpanch of the gram panchayat. (Para - 5) [510-C-D] 1.2 PW 5 stated in her examination in chief that she had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased with fists and slaps but in cross examination she had stated that when she reached the police station alongwith PW 1 they had disclosed that the deceased was lying in injured condition and had not disclosed the names of the accused persons. (Para - 5) [510-E-F] B c 1.3 PW5 stated that they had reached the police station at about mid night. But the FIR was registered early morning on the next day. PW2 in his statement had stated that he could not identify any of the accused persons due to darkness. If that be so, the evidence of PW1 and PW5, D[that they had clearly identified the accused persons can-] not be believed. It is true that even in darkness known persons can be identified from the manner of speech, style of walking and several other peculiar features. But the evidence of PW2 was to the effect that because of darkE[ness none ][of ][the ][accused ][persons ][could ][be identified. ] (Para - 5) [510-G-H; 511-A-B] ~ 2. There is discrepan~y not only as regards the place of occurrence but also on several vital aspects like nondisclosure and non-possibility of identification. Hence, F[judgment ][of ][the High ][Court ][does ][not ][suffer ][from any ][infir-] mity to warrant interference. (Para - 5) [511-B] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 46-47 of 2003 G From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2001 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 959 and 960 of 1990 C.D. Singh, Aditya Singh and Sunny Choudhary for the Appellant. H _---i_ --1 ,, # STATE OF M.P. _v._ MAKHAN@ MAD,!\N 509 & ORS. S.K. Gambhir, Dr. Kailash Chand, Anil K. Sharma and T.N. Singh for the Respondents. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High B Court at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents who are hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). They were found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in ST case No. 169 of[c ] 1989 and were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years and life respectively. 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: ->-i D On 15. 7 .1989 Prem la! (hereinafter referred to as the 'deD ceased') had called a doctor for treatment of his sister and while he was returning after seeing off the doctor and reached near Kanji House Bazar Bohalla, accused persons had altercation with him and in order to kill, assaulted him by sticks and rod. They also threatened to set on fire his motorcycle at which Laxmi E Bai and Maniya Bai (PW5) went there where they saw accused persons assaulting the deceased by rod and lathi as also by fists and slaps. The deceased was shouting for help. Later he became unconscious and fell down and the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter the deceased F was taken by his wife Somti Bai (PW1) and Maniya Bai (PW 5) to their house in unconscious condition. Report of the incident was given at 4.30_AM to the police station at Sarni, which is at a distance of about 9Km from the place of incident. Premlal was sent for medical examination to Primary Health Centre from which he was referred to Padhar Hospital for treatment. Premlal sueG cum bed to his injuries on 20. 7 .1989. After his death, his dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. V.K. Shrivastava (PW 14). In the opinion _of_ the doctor Premlal died due to coma on account of head injury. After investigation charge sheet was filed. H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A t-- Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, the trial was held. The trial court as noted above found the accused persons guilty and convicted them. In appeal, however, the High Court directed the acquittal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court should not have discarded the evidence of the eye witnesses. B 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court. c 5. It is to be noted that the High Court with:reference to evidence of Somti Bai, PW1 noted that in the First Information Report it was stated that the place of occurrence is Kanji House Bazar Bohalla but in court the witnesses stated that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at the residence of Deoli D (PW 7) the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat by Lathi and rod. According to Lachhu (PW 2) the deceased was assaulted on the way while he was coming from the house of Sarpanch (PW 7) whereas according to Somti Bai (PW1 ), the deceased was assaulted in front of the house of the Sarpanch. Maniya Bai (PW E[5) stated ][in ][her examination ][in ][chief that she had seen the ac-] cused persons assaulting the deceased with fists and sl.aps but in cross examination she had stated that when she reached the police station alongwith Somti Bai (PW 1) they had disclosed that the deceased was lying in injured condition and had not F disclosed the names of the accused persons. In contrast Somti Bai (PW 1 ); Lachhu (PW2) and Maniya Bai (PW5) stated that the name of the accus~d was in the first information report. In her cross-examination she clearly admitted that police told them that they would make enquiry and if report was found false they G[would be ][in ][trouble. Additionally, Maniya Bai (PW5) stated that ] they had reached the police station about mid night. But the FIR was registered early morning next day. Lachh_u (PW2) in his statement had stated that he could not identify any of the accused persons due to darkness. If that be so, the evidence of Somti Bai (PW1) Maniya Bai (PW5), that they had clearly iden- H _t--_ ~ , ""' -1- '-- '.r'I ~- J.- _:_ STATE OF M.P. _v._ MAKHAN @ MADAN & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 511 tified the accused persons cannot be believed. It is true that A even in darkness known persons can be identified from the manner of speech, style of walking and several other peculiar features. But the evidence of PW 2 was to the effect that because of darkness none of the accused persons could be identified. In the instant case not only there is discrepancy as reB gards the place of occurrence but also on several vital aspects like non-disclosure and non-possibility of identification. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. Appeals are dismissed accordingly. C S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.