Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Ramant Singh on 30 April, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
DB : G.S. Ahluwalia & Rajeev Shrivastava J.J.
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P.
Vs.
Ramant Singh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.P.S. Chouhan, Public Prosecutor for State
Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing)
with Shri M.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 7-4-2021
Date of Judgment : . 30.04.2021
Whether approved for reporting :
Judgment
(Passed on 30/04/2021)
Per G.S. Ahluwalia J.
1. Criminal Appeals No. 397/2005 (Nathu Singh Vs. State of
M.P.), Cr.A. No. 401/2005 (Ghanshyam Singh Vs. State of M.P.),
Cr.A. No. 425/2005 (Ramvir Singh Vs. State of M.P.) and Cr.A. No.
790/2005 (State of M.P. Vs. Mahendra Singh @ Kallu and others)
arise out of cross case S.T. No. 37/2001. In the light of the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathilal & Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 1990 Supp SCC 145 the present
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
appeal as well as the above mentioned appeals arising out of cross
case were heard simultaneously, and accordingly, judgment is being
pronounced on the same day.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20-5-2005 passed by 2 nd
A.S.J., Morena in S.T. No. 229 of 2003, thereby acquitting the
respondent Ramant Singh for offence under Sections 148, 302 in the
alternative 302/149 of I.P.C.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that other 9 persons,
namely, Vinod, Girraj, Suresh Singh, Manohar Singh, Virendra
Singh, Sultan Singh, Nathu Singh son of Madho Singh, Jaikaran
Singh and Ran Singh were also tried for offence under Section 148,
302/149 and by the impugned judgment, they were also acquitted by
the Trial Court. Application for grant of leave to appeal was filed
against all 10 persons including the respondent, but leave was
granted by this Court by order dated 30-7-2008 against Respondent
Ramant Singh only and the application for grant of leave to appeal
was rejected against remaining 9 persons namely Vinod, Girraj,
Suresh Singh, Manohar Singh, Virendra Singh, Sultan Singh, Nathu
Singh son of Madho Singh, Jaikaran Singh and Ran Singh (M.Cr.C.
No. 3966 of 2005).
4. The prosecution story in short is that the complainant Angad
Singh (P.W. 2) went to Police Station Porsa Distt. Morena along with
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Kallu Singh and lodged a F.I.R. on 16-10-2000 at about 21:15 on the
allegation that at about 8:30 P.M., he was in his field. He heard the
noice of gun shots accordingly he came back to village and found
that the dead body of Brajesh was lying in the Kharanja (a street
made up of stones) near the drawing room of the house of Ramvir
Singh. He had gun shot injury on his chest and Kallu Singh, Mahesh
Singh and Rajesh Singh were standing near the dead body. The dead
body was brought to the house on a cot. The names of the assailants
would be disclosed by Mahesh Singh, Ramvir Singh and Rajesh
Singh.
5. On this report, the police registered Crime No. 203/2000
against unknown persons.
6. When the police party went to spot, then it was found that three
more dead bodies were lying in front of the house of respondent
Ramant Singh and lot of persons were crying. Three injured persons
were also found, who were sent for medical treatment. Accordingly
Dehati Nalishi, Ex. D.25 was written and police force was deployed
near the dead bodies.
7. It is not out of place to mention here that, as per cross case,
Four Persons, namely Mamta, Keshav, Raghunath Singh @ Chotte
Singh, and Jaswant Singh lost their lives due to gun shot injuries,
whereas Manohar Singh and Gomti bai sustained gun shot injuries.
On the report of Ramant Singh/respondent, Crime No. 204/2000 was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
registered against Ghanshyam Singh, Ramvir Singh (C.W.1), Nathu
Singh son of Choudhary Singh, Mahendra @ Kallu Singh (P.W.7),
Kaushlendra Singh, Sindhi Singh, Dinesh Singh, Kallu @ Kalyan
Singh, Mahesh Singh Tomar (P.W.3) and Rajesh Singh Sikarwar
(P.W.6). It is also not out of place to mention here that in cross crime
No. 204/2000 registered at Police Station Porsa, Distt. Morena, all
the above mentioned accused persons were tried in S.T. No. 37/2001
and Nathu Singh, Ghanshyam Singh and Ramvir Singh have been
convicted for offence under Sections 302, 302/34 of I.P.C. (Four
Counts), 307/34 of I.P.C. (Two Counts) and the remaining accused
persons namely Mahendra @ Kallu Singh (P.W.7), Kaushlendra
Singh, Sindhi Singh, Dinesh Singh, Kallu @ Kalyan Singh, Mahesh
Singh Tomar (P.W.3) and Rajesh Singh Sikarwar (P.W.6) have been
acquitted.
8. It is also not out of place to mention here, that Ram Singh
(P.W.4), had filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
against Ramant Singh/respondent and Vinod, Girraj, Suresh Singh,
Manohar Singh, Virendra Singh, Sultan Singh, Nathu Singh son of
Madho Singh and Jaikaran Singh for offence under Section
302,148,149 of I.P.C. and under Section 25,27 of Arms Act. From the
record of the Court of J.M.F.C, Ambah, Distt. Morena it appears that
on 17-10-2001, the police expressed that it would be filing closure
report, but thereafter, it was informed that further investigation is
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
going. From, the order dated 4-3-2002 passed by J.M.F.C., Ambah,
Distt. Morena it appears that police produced the case diary and a
closure report was also prepared (It appears that closure report was
not filed). J.M.F.C. Ambah, Distt. Morena, by order dated 11-3-
2002, took cognizance of offence.
9. It appears a Criminal Revision No. 97/2002 was filed by the
respondent and other co-accused persons, before the Sessions Court,
Morena. In the said Criminal Revision, the Superintendent of Police,
Morena submitted a report, that the police has filed a charge sheet
and accordingly, the Cr.R. was disposed of in the light of the
provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C.
10. Thereafter, on 22-7-2002, the J.M.F.C., Ambah, Distt. Morena
considered the application under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and observed
that complaint has been filed against 10 persons and the police has
filed charge sheet against 7 persons, whereas charge sheet has not
been filed against Suresh, Nathu and Virendra. Since, cognizance
was already taken against the above mentioned three persons also,
therefore, it was directed that the complaint be also tagged with the
charge sheet and it was also directed that since, cognizance has
already been taken against Suresh, Nathu and Virendra, therefore,
warrants of arrest be issued against them, till they appear in the
charge sheet filed by the police.
11. It appears that on 28-4-2002, the police filed charge sheet
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
against Manohar Singh, Ran Singh, Ramant Singh/Respondent,
Ramkaran, Sultan, Girraj, and Vinod. As all of them were
absconding therefore, the charge sheet was filed under Section 299 of
Cr.P.C. Later on, Supplementary charge sheet was filed against the
accused persons. Except Ramant/respondent, all other 9 accused
persons were granted bail, and by order dated 19-9-2002, the
J.M.F.C., Ambah, Distt. Morena committed the case to the Sessions
Court against 10 persons.
12. The Trial Court by order dated 27-11-2003, framed charge
under Section 148,302, or in the alternative 302/149 of I.P.C. against
the respondent and under Section 148,302/149 against the remaining
9 persons.
13. The respondent and other co-accused persons, abjured their
guilt and pleaded not guilty.
14. Ramvir Singh Tomar (C.W.1) was examined as Court witness.
15. The prosecution examined Dr. D.C. Parashar (P.W.1), Angad
Singh (P.W.2), Mahesh Singh Tomar (P.W.3), Ram Singh Tomar
(P.W.4), Munesh Singh @ Mukesh Singh Tomar (P.W.5), Rajesh
Singh Sikarwar (P.W.6), Mahendra @ Kallu Singh (P.W.7), D.R.
Mishra (P.W.8), and R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9). Ramant Singh
(Respondent) examined himself as (D.W.1).
16. The prosecution relied upon Requisition for postmortem of
deceased Brajesh, Ex. P.1, Post mortem report of Brajesh, Ex. P.2,
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
F.I.R., Ex. P.3, Safina Form Ex. P.4, Spot Map Ex. P.5, Receipt Ex.
P.6, Complaint filed by Ram Singh, Ex. P.7, List of document filed
along with Complaint Ex. P.8, F.I.R., Ex. P.9 (this document was
already got exhibited as Ex. P.3), Statement of Rajesh under Section
202 of Cr.P.C., Ex. P.10, Statement of Rajesh recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C., Ex. P.11, Seizure Memo of one shoe of right leg,
blood stained earth and plain earth which were seized from the spot
(these articles were seized in front of the house of Ramvir Singh,
where dead body of the deceased Brajesh was lying), Ex. P.12, Crime
detail form Ex. P.13, Seizure Memo of blood stained earth, plain earth
as well as one shoe of the deceased Brajesh of left leg from the spot
i.e., on the back side of the house of Keshav Singh) Ex. P.14, Seizure
Memo of cloths of the deceased Brajesh, Ex. P.15, F.S.L. Report Ex.
P.16, and F.S.L. report of gun shot marks found on the cloths of the
deceased Ex. P.17.
17. The respondent relied upon copy of requisition for post mortem
of deceased Keshav Ex. D.1, Copy of Postmortem report of Keshav
Ex. D.2, copy of requisition for post mortem of deceased Raghunath
Singh @ Chhote Singh Ex. D.3, Post mortem report of Raghunath @
Chhote Singh Ex. D.4, copy of requisition for post mortem of
deceased Jaswant Singh Ex. D.5, Post mortem report of Jaswant
Singh Ex. D.6, Copy of requistion for M.L.C. of Smt. Gomati bai Ex.
D.7, Copy of M.L.C. of Smt. Gomati bai Ex. D.8, Copy of requisition
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
for M.L.C. of Manohar Singh Ex. D.9, Copy of M.L.C. of Manohar
Singh Ex. D.10, Copy of requisition for M.L.C. of Mamta Devi Ex.
D.11, Copy of M.L.C. of Mamta Devi Ex. D.12, statement of Angad
Singh recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Ex. D.13, Copy of
statement of Angad Singh recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Ex.
D.14, Copy of Spot Map Ex. D.15, Copy of spot map Ex. D.16,
Statement of Mahesh Singh recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Ex. D.17, Copy of statement of Mahesh Singh recorded under Section
202 of Cr.P.C. Ex. D.18, Orders dated 8-3-2002, 11-3-2002 and 20-3-
2002 passed by J.M.F.C. Ambah, Distt. Morena in complaint filed by
Ram Singh Ex. D.19, Letter sent by complainant Ram Singh to
Director General of Police, State of M.P. Ex. D-20, Letter written by
complainant Ram Singh to Home Minister, Ex. D.21, Letter written
by Home Minister Ex.D.22, Statement of complainant Ram Singh,
recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Ex. D.23, Statement of
Munesh Singh recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Ex. D.24,
Dehati Nalishi lodged by respondent Ramant Singh Ex. D.25, and
Copy of F.I.R. lodged in Crime No. 204/2000 against Ramvir Singh
Tomar etc (in cross case) Ex. D.26.
18. The Trial Court by impugned judgment dated 20-5-2005, held
that Ramant Singh/Respondent had fired in exercise of his right of
private defence and there was no unlawful assembly and accordingly,
acquitted all the accused persons.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
19. As already pointed out, although leave to appeal was sought
against the acquittal of all the accused persons, but this Court by
order dated 30-7-2008, granted leave to appeal against the respondent
and dismissed the application against remaining co-accused persons.
20. Challenging the acquittal of the respondent Ramant Singh, it is
submitted by the Counsel for the State that the Trial Court wrongly
held that the respondent had fired at Brajesh Singh, in exercise of his
right of private defence. Undue importance has been given to minor
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Since,
their evidences were recorded after 4 years of incident, therefore,
minor omissions and contradictions are bound to come. It is further
submitted that since, the respondent had not pleaded the right of
private defence, therefore, the Trial Court should not have acquitted
him on the ground of exercise of right of private defence. It is further
submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence
of Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh
Singh (P.W.5).
21. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior
Advocate that in fact the respondent didnot commit any offence at all.
It is submitted that once, the Trial Court had come to a conclusion
that Angad Singh (P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4)
and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) are not reliable witnesses, and
Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Singh (P.W.5) have not seen the incident, then should not have
directly jumped to a conclusion that Ramant Singh/respondent must
have fired in exercise of his right of self defence. It is further
submitted that a function was going on in the house of the
respondent, on the occasion of birth of his new born baby. Food was
being served to the persons who had come to attend the function.
The complainant party was deliberately bursting crackers. As a result,
the waste material of crackers was falling in the food. When it was
objected by the respondent and a request was made to the
complainant party, not to burst crackers, then a gun shot was fired by
Ramvir Singh in air. The deceased Brajesh was standing on the
dilapidated house of Brijlal and he sustained injury due to the gun
shot fired by Ramvir Singh. Thereafter, the other persons, opened
fired on the family members of Ramant Singh/respondent, as a result
of which four persons, namely Keshav, Raghunath, Jaswant and
Mamta lost their lives and Manohar Singh and Gomati bai sustained
gun shot injuries. The allegation of firing gun shot against the
respondent is false. It is further submitted, that the prosecution has
not explained the murder of four persons and injuries on two injured
persons. In alternative, it is submitted that in case, if the Court comes
to a conclusion, that the respondent had fired a gun shot causing
injury to Brajesh, then the Trial Court has also come to a conclusion
that the respondent had acted in exercise of his right of private
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
defence. It is submitted that even if an accused has not specifically
taken the defence of right of private defence, even then it can be
established from the prosecution evidence itself. To buttress his
contentions, the Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Singh Vs.
Poonam Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 320 and judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Subhash & Ors. Vs. State of
M.P. reported in (2018) 2 JLJ 658. It is further that since, the
respondent has already been acquitted by the Trial Court, therefore,
there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent and
unless and until, the findings given by the Trial Court are perverse, its
judgment of acquittal should not be reversed only on the ground that
two views were possible. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for
the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in AIR 2014 SC 2200.
22. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the
parties.
23. The first question which requires determination is that whether
the death of deceased Brajesh was a homicidal death or not?
24. Requistion for post mortem is Ex. P.1 and the Post Mortem
report is Ex. P.2. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. D.C. Parashar
(P.W.1). As per the post mortem report, the entry wound was on right
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
side over sternum of chest at last border, 6 cms below the supra
sternal notch, measuring 1.5x1.5cm oval shaped inverted margins,
and blackening was present. It was directed backward and
downward antimortem in nature. The Exit wound was situated on
left side of back of lower border of scapula measuring 3cmx2cm
irregular margins everted edges. On internal examination fracture of
sternum and left 7th rib was found. Laceration of both lungs and
heart was found. The cause of death was excessive bleeding from
injuries to the vital organs. The duration of death was 12 to 24 hours
and death was homicidal in nature caused by firearm.
25. Dr. D.C. Parashar (P.W.1) has stated that no bullet was found
inside the body of the deceased Brajesh as it must have gone out of
the body from the exit wound. The gun shot must have been fired
from the range of 15 fts. However, this witness was not in a position
to state about the minimum range of firing. In para 11 of the cross
examination, a specific question was put to this witness that if the
assailant was on the ground and the deceased was at a higher place,
then he could have sustained the entry wound. In reply it was stated
that it is possible, but he further clarified that he cannot say so with
certainity. He further stated, that the gun shot must have been fired
from the minium range of 5 fts which was not more than 15 fts. On
cross examination by the Court, it was also stated that the direction
of the gun shot was downward. It was further stated that, it is
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
possible, that either the gun shot must have been fired from a higher
place or the deceased must have been standing at a higher place and
the assailant might be standing on a lower place and the gun shot
might have been fired by pointing the barrel upwards. Since, there
was a fracture in sternum and 7th rib therefore, it is possible that
either the gun shot might have been fired from the parallel position or
the gun shot might have been fired from a higher place, and after
hitting the bones, the bullet might have moved towards downward
direction.
The statement of this witness reads as under :
43..... c`ts'k flag ds /kko dh fn'kk v/kksorhZ Fkh] vkSj blls dbZ
laHkkouk;sa mRiUu gksrh gSA ;g Hkh lEHko gS fd xksyh ekjrs le;
vijk/kh mij [kMk jgk gks] vkSj c`ts'k uhpkbZ ij jgk gksxk] ;g
Hkh gks ldrk gS fd e`rd c`ts'k o vijk/kh lemapkbZ ij jgs gks]
vFkok c`t's k vf/kd mapkbZ ij o vijk/kh uhps jgk gks vkSj canwd
dh uky mij dh fn'kk es lekukUrj j[kdj xksyh pykbZ xbZ gks]
D;ksafd Nkrh es LVueZ o lkroha ilyh es vfLFk Hkax gS] blfy;s
gks ldrk gS fd xksyh lekukUrj mapkbZ ;k mij ls pyk;s tkus
ds ckn gM~fM;ks ls Vdjkdj v/kksorhZ fn'kk es pyh xbZ gksA
26. Thus, it is clear that Dr. D.C. Parashar (P.W. 1) was not in a
position to clarify the location of the deceased and the assailant. It
appears that this witness didnot check the track of movement of
bullet by inserting probe. It also appears that while conducting the
Post Mortem, this witness also didnot try to find out the movement
track of the bullet. Be that as it may. One thing is clear that since,
the deceased Brajesh died because of gun shot injury, therefore, his
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
death was homicidal in nature.
27. As Dr. P.C. Parashar (P.W.1) was not in a position to state
about the location of the deceased and the assailant, therefore, the
same shall be decided after considering the other circumstances of
the case.
28. Dr. D.C. Parashar (P.W.1), further admitted that on 17-10-2000,
he along with team of Doctors, had also conducted postmortem of
the dead bodies of Keshav Singh, Raghunath Singh @ Chhote Singh,
Jaswant Singh. On the instructions of the local administration, the
post mortem of above mentioned three dead persons was conducted
in village Khoyala itself after covering the postmortem table. The
requisition for post mortem of Keshav is Ex. D.1, and the post
mortem report is Ex. D.2. The cause of death of Keshav was gun
shot injury. The requisition for postmortem of Raghunath @ Chhote
Singh is Ex. D.3, and his postmortem report is Ex. D.4. His cause of
death was also gun shot injury. Three pallets were also found in the
dead body of Raghunath @ Chhote Singh which were handed over to
the police constable. The requisition for post mortem of Jaswant is
Ex. D.5 and his post mortem report is Ex. D.6. His cause of death
was also gun shot injury. On 17-10-2000 at 00.35-00.55 A.M. in the
night, he had medically examined injured Gomati, Manohar Singh
and Mamta. The requisition for M.L.C. of Gomati is Ex. D.7. In
M.L.C. he found one entry wound on right wrist with adjoining exit
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
wound. The M.L.C. report is Ex. D.8. The requisition for M.L.C. of
Manohar Singh is Ex. D.9. On medical examination he found seven
lacerated wounds on the lower back and buttocks of different
dimensions. One lacerated wound was found in the middle area of
both the buttocks. The injuries were caused by gunshots. The
M.L.C. report is Ex. D.10. The requisition for M.L.C. of Mamta is
Ex. D.11. One entry wound on right side of abdoman with inverted
margins of oval shape with slight blackning was found. One
lacerated wound was found on left buttock with irregular margins.
The M.L.C. is Ex. D.12. In cross examination by the Court, it was
stated by this witnesses that since, different sizes of entry wounds
were found on the bodies of the injured and dead persons, therefore,
gun shots must have been fired from different firearms. The post
mortem report of Mamta was not got exhibited by the respondent.
29. On 27-11-2003, the Trial Court framed the charges and fixed
the case for examination of witnesses on 22-1-2004. Ramvir Singh
was summoned as prosecution witness. On 23-9-2004, a request was
made by the Public Prosecutor Shri Pachouri, that earlier, Shri Parmal
was appearing as Public Prosecutor and accordingly on 27-11-2003,
he had made a prayer for summoning Ramvir Singh. Since, Shri
Parmal is also appearing as Public Prosecutor in cross case i.e., S.T.
No. 37/2001, therefore, in the present case, Shri Pachouri has
substituted Shri Parmal as Public Prosecutor and he doesnot wish to
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
examine Ramvir Singh and thus prayed for giving up the witness.
However, the prayer made by the Public Prosecutor was not accepted
by the Trial Court on the ground that in the F.I.R., Ex. P.3, it is
mentioned that the names of the assailants would be disclosed by
Ramvir Singh also, therefore, by exercising power under Section 311
of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court directed for examination of Ramvir Singh
Tomar as Court witness. Accordingly, on 27-11-2004, Ramvir Singh
(C.W.1) was examined.
30. Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) has stated that deceased Brajesh was the
son of his brother who has been killed by the respondent. He further
stated that this information was given to him by Mahesh. This
witness expressed that he doesnot have any personal information
because he was not present on the spot. He further clarified that the
first informant Angad Singh (P.W.2) is his cousin brother. He further
stated that since, he was not present on the spot, therefore, he didnot
inform Angad Singh (P.W.2) that he would disclose the names of the
miscreants. This witness was cross examined by the respondent. It
was admitted by this witness that although their relationship with the
respondent was normal, but they were not on visiting terms. He
further stated that one year before the murder of Brajesh, he had
already shifted to village Patrai. This witness denied the suggestions
that on 16-10-2000, he was in village Khoyala and a function was
going on in the house of the respondent, and some children were
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
bursting crackers. He also denied that this witness went to the house
of the respondent along with other persons namely Kaushlendra,
Ghanshyam, Nathu and fired gun shots cuasing death of Keshav and
Jaswant. This witness claimed that he didnot have any gun and was
not present on the spot. It was also suggested that thereafter,
Ghanshyam fired gun shot causing death of Raghunath @ Chhote,
which was denied and it was replied that he was not present on the
spot. It was also suggested that thereafter, this witness along with
other persons namely Ghanshyam, Nathu, Kaushlendra, Dinesh,
Rajesh, Sindhi, Kallu, Bhanupratap, Chhote @ Mahesh, Mahendra @
Kallu etc. entered inside the house of the respondent, which was
objected by Mamta, as a result, this witness fired causing death of
Mamta. This suggestion was also denied. The suggestion that Nathu
Singh fired gun shot causing injury to Gomati and Kaushlendra fired
gun shot causing injury to Manohar Singh was also denied. The
suggestion that Mahendra @ Kallu gave a lathi blow to Ramant
Singh/respondent, was also denied by claiming that he was not
present on the spot. The suggestion that after the incident, this
witness absconded was also denied. This witness stated that only
after he was arrested by the police, he came to know about the murder
of Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and Chhote Singh. He further stated that
after about 2 months of the incident, he went to village Khoyala, but
since, there was nobody in the house, therefore, he didnot come to
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
know about the murder of Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and Raghunath @
Chhote. A suggestion was also denied, that in order to save himself,
he is making a false statement that he was not present on the spot at
the time of incident on 16-10-2000. This witness further stated that
only when he was arrested by the police, then he came to know about
the murder of Brajesh also. He further stated that all his family
members were aware of the fact that this witness was residing in
village Patrai.
31. Angad Singh (P.W.2) is the complainant who had lodged the
F.I.R. Undisputedly, this witness is not an eye witness. It is stated by
this witness that on 16-10-2000, at about 8 P.M., he was in his field,
when he heard the gun shot noice. He went back to his house and
found that the dead body of Brajesh was kept in front of his drawing
room, and Munesh, Ram Singh and Mahesh were crying. On querry,
he was informed by Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Mahesh (P.W.3)that
Ramnat Singh/Respondent has killed Brajesh who was accompanied
by Sultan, Manohar, Virendra, Vinod, Ran Singh and Nathu Singh.
This witness further stated that the name of Girraj was also disclosed
by Ram Singh and Mahesh. After looking at the accused persons
who were standing in the dock, this witness further stated that name
of Suresh was also disclosed to him. He further stated that he was
informed by Ram Singh and Mahesh that all these persons had
surrounded. In the light of torch, he saw that there was a gun shot
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
injury on the chest of deceased Brajesh. Thereafter, he went to police
station Porsa and informed the Head Constable, that he has come
from village Khoyala and Brajesh has been killed. The said Head
Constable obtained his signatures and instructed that he may go back
to village and he would come along with police party. When he came
back, he found that the dead body of Brajesh was already shifted by
Ram Singh to the garden area. He further stated that the Head
Constable had obtained his signatures on blank papers. This witness
admitted his signatures on the F.I.R., Ex P.3. Thereafter at about 9
P.M., the police party reached on the spot and notice for preparing
Panchnama, Ex. P.4 was given. The inquest report, Ex. P.5 was
prepared. Thereafter, the dead body was shifted to Police Station,
where it remained for the entire night. On the next date, the dead
body was handed over to him and its receipt is Ex. P.6. The
cremation was done thereafter. On a question that whether any other
person was also present, when the incident was being narrated to him
by Ram Singh (P.W.4), Munesh (P.W.5) and Mahesh (P.W.3), then it
was stated by him that no other person was present. In cross
examination by the Court, this witness stated that he had not seen any
other dead body as it was dark. He further stated that he had
informed the Head Constable, that Brajesh Singh has been killed by
Ramant Singh and other persons were surrounding the deceased.
However, he clarified that this fact would be disclosed by Ram Singh
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
because he had seen the other persons. This witness further stated
that at the time of preparation of inquest report, the dead body of
Brajesh was having both the shoes.
32. Mahesh Singh Tomar (P.W.3) is the brother of the deceased
Brajesh. This witness has stated that on 16-10-2000, the deceased
Brajesh was surrounded by Vinod, Girraj, Manohar, Sultan, Virendra,
Jaikaran, Ran Singh, Nathu Singh, and Suresh Singh, whereas the
respondent Ramant shot him dead. The incident took place at about
8-8:30 P.M. in front of the drawing room of this witness. It is further
stated that on 16-10-2000, when he returned back to village Khoyala
and was keeping his cycle, then he found that hot talk was going on
between the deceased and accused persons. Manohar Singh was
having .12 Bore gun. Girraj was having Mouser gun, Vinod was
having gun, Ramant was having Katta (country made pistol). Other
accused persons were having lathi and farsa. The deceased Brajesh
was also having one Katta (country made pistol). At that time, one
gun shot was fired from accused side. Thereafter he clarified that
gun shot was fired by Ramant Singh/respondent. The deceased
Brajesh also fired one gun shot. The gun shot fired by
Ramant/respondent, caused injury to the deceased Brajesh. This
witness could not explain that who sustained the injury by gun shot
fired by Brajesh. Manohar also fired one gun shot, but this witness
could not see that to whom the said gun shot caused injury. It was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
further claimed that he had seen the incident in the light of torch.
Ram Singh and Munesh were sitting in the drawing room. After the
deceased sustained gun shot injury, the assailants went towards the
house of Ramlakhan. After some time, Angad also came there and he
was accordingly sent to Police Station. This witness also narrated the
entire incident to Angad Singh. Thereafter, this witness, Ram Singh
and Munesh brought the dead body of Brajesh to their garden. After
some time, Angad came back along with police. Inquest report was
prepared in the night itself. Thereafter, the dead body was taken by
the police to the police station. This witness and Angad went to the
police station along with the dead body. On cross examination by the
Court, this witness expressed his ignorance about the cause of
incident. In cross examination by the accused persons, this witness
expressed his ignorance about the murders of Keshav Singh, Jaswant
Singh and Raghunath @ Chhote Singh. He also expressed his
ignorance about the fact that gun shot fired by which person had
resulted in death of the above mentioned persons. This witness
claimed that on 17-10-2000, came to know about the death of Keshav
, Jaswant, Raghunath @ Chhote Singh and Mamta. He also accepted
that on 17-10-2000, he came to know that Gomati and Manohar have
also sustained injuries. He also accepted that he and other persons
are facing trial for the murders of Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and
Chhote @ Raghunath and for making an attempt of murder of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Gomati and Manohar. He specifically admitted that in the light of the
torch, he had seen that the deceased Brajesh had fired a gun shot.
Thereafter, he clarified that the deceased Brajesh had fired in air. He
denied that this witness and other persons had also fired gun shots.
He claimed that only he, Ram Singh and Munesh were present on the
spot. This witness was shown the spot map, Ex. D.15, and he
admitted that the map has been rightly prepared. This witness has
also admitted that dilapidated house of Brijlal has been rightly shown
in the spot map Ex. D.16. However, this witness claimed that murder
of Brajesh didnot take place at a place which has been shown as
"Place of incident" in the spot map Ex. D.15. This witness was
shown another spot map, Ex. D.16 and it was accepted by this
witness that it has been correctly prepared except by saying that the
house of Kuber Singh is in fact is the house of Kumher Singh.
However, this witness denied that Brajesh had sustained gun shot on
the roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal which has been marked as Sr.
No.1 in Ex. D.16. He also denied that another shoe of Brajesh was
lying at Sr. No.2 in Ex. D.16. He also expressed his ignorance about
blood at Sr. No.1, shown in spot map Ex. D.16. He further stated that
the gun shot was fired by the respondent/Ramant from the Kharanja
( street made up of stones) situated in front of platform of his house.
He further claimed that there was no source of light except torch. He
further claimed that in absence of torch, nothing could have been
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
seen. He further claimed that torch was kept on the platform which
is 2-2 1/2 ft. above the Kharanja (Road). He further claimed that he
was about 10-12 ft.s away from Brajesh. Ramant/respondent was
having 315 bore Katta (a country made pistol). He further stated that
about 5-7 minutes after the incident, the dead body of Brajesh was
shifted to their garden area which is situated at a distance of about
100 yards from his drawing room. He accepted that the dead body of
the deceased Brajesh was taken to the house of Ramvir which is in
the outskirts of the village and is also shown in Spot Map Ex. D.16
(Sr.No.5). He further claimed that the deceased Brajesh was also
having a 315 bore Katta. The said Katta had fallen down from the
hand of deceased Brajesh immediately after he sustained gun shot
injury. The said katta was left by this witness on the spot itself,
whereas they took away the torch. He further stated that no attempt
was made to stop the bleeding as they already knew that Brajesh has
expired. In para 30 of his cross examination, this witness has made a
specific admission that in fact the deceased had fired first and only
thereafter Ramant/respondent fired. He further clarified that
Ramant/respondent fired after one minute of gun shot fired by the
deceased Brajesh. He further claimed that he didnot hear noice of
any gun shot fire in front of the door of the house of Ramant
Singh/respondent. However, he accepted that if any gun shot is fired
in front of the house of Ramant Singh/respondent, then he would
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
certainly hear the noice of the same. He further claimed that he had
informed Angad Singh (P.W.2) that all the other accused persons had
surrounded the deceased and Ramant Singh/respondent had killed
him. He further stated that Angad was also having torch and only in
the light of torch, he had seen the dead body of Brajesh and could not
explain as to whether Angad had seen the katta of the deceased
Brajesh or not? He further claimed that after the time of incident,
except Ram Singh, Munesh and Angad, none of his male family
member had come on the spot. He further claimed Ramvir Singh was
not in the village. He further claimed that Ramvir Singh had
returned either on 18 or 19-10-2000, and he had informed him about
the incident. He further claimed that since his mental condition was
not stable, therefore, he doesnot recollect as to whether he had
received the copy of the F.I.R. lodged by Angad or not? This witness
has also claimed that he had informed the entire incident to the police
personals. He further claimed that except this witness, Ram Singh
and Munesh, no other person knows about the incident as well as
who shot the deceased Brajesh. He further claimed that at the time of
investigation, he didnot inform the S.H.O. Mishra, that the deceased
was also having Katta and he too had fired a gun shot and also didnot
disclose that Katta is lying on the spot. He further claimed that about
one year after the incident, his statement was recorded by the Add.
S.P., and he had disclosed that the deceased was surrounded by all
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
the accused persons, and he had returned after getting the torch
repared. He further claimed that he had also informed that he was
accompanied by Ram Singh and Munesh. [After going through the
police case diary, the public prosecutor informed that the case diary
doesnot contain the statement of this witness, which was claimed to
have been recorded by Add. S.P. It was further stated by the Public
Prosecutor that as per the case diary proceedings dated 21-11-2000,
Angad Singh (P.W.2) was searched but he didnot appear for
interrogation Further, as per case diary proceeding dated 10-11-
2001, the S.D.O.(P), Ambah, Distt. Morena had recommended for
filing closure report, but the S.P., Morena directed for further
investigation. Thereafter on 7-12-2001, Mahesh, Sindhi, Rajesh,
Bhanupratap, Angad, Rajesh, Kallu, Vinod, and Kaushlendra were
interrogated. Thereafter, the case diary was sent to the Court of
J.M.F.C., Ambah, where complaint filed by Ram Singh was pending.
The public prosecutor also clarified, that the case diary contains the
statement of this witness dated 1-11-2000 recorded by R.S. Ghuraiya
(P.W.9)]. On further cross examination, this witness denied that any
statement of this witness was recorded on 1-11-2000 by R.S.
Ghuraiya (P.W.9). He further claimed that the copy of statement
dated 1-11-2000 which has been filed along with the charge sheet is
wrong. This witness was confronted with statement "that on 16-10-
2000, crackers were being bursted.....enmity between them", then he
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
replied that such a statement was not given by him. The copy of his
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been marked as
Ex. D.17. This witness further stated that when he was returning
back from Porsa, then he was informed by the lady members of the
family, that children are bursting crackers, but claimed that when he
reached there, he didnot find any child or crackers. He further
claimed that only the deceased Brajesh was there with whom, hot talk
was going on with the accused persons. This witness was given
suggestion that since, Ram Singh and Munesh were not present,
therefore, he never disclosed their presence to the police, which was
denied and claimed that Ram Singh and Munesh were present on the
spot. This witness was also confronted with his statement recorded
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Ex. D-18, in the Court of J.M.F.C.,
Ambah, Distt Morena. He claimed that he had never stated that
children were bursting crackers, and when he came out of the house
after hearing the noice of firing, then he saw that Brajesh had
sustained gun shot injury. On confrontation, this witness denied of
having made such statement in his statement under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C. He was also confronted with his statement "that immediately
after the incident, they left the village", but he claimed that infact
they had left the village after 5-6 days of the incident. In para 65 of
his cross examination, this witness claimed that the persons who had
surrounded the deceased were at a distance of about 25-30 ft.s from
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
the torch. He further claimed that Ram Singh and Munesh didnot
intervene in the incident. He further claimed that no function was
going on in the house of Ramant/respondent. He further claimed that
the incident took place because Manohar Singh was hurling abuses
under the influence of alcohol.
33. Ram Singh Tomar (P.W.4) is the father of the deceased
Brajesh. He claimed that on 16-10-2000, Manohar Singh was
hurling abuses. The other co-accused persons were also there, and
they were also hurling abuses. The deceased Brajesh also came there
and also started abusing them in retaliation. Thereafter, Manohar
Singh fired a gun shot. Vinod also fired a gun shot. The deceased
also fired a gun shot in his turn. Thereafter, Ramant
Singh/respondent fired a gun shot causing injury to the deceased
Brajesh. He further claimed that Brajesh was standing on the
Kharanja( street made up of stones). After the deceased fell down,
all the ten accused persons ran away. Thereafter Angad Singh
(P.W.2) came there and on his instructions, he went to police station.
The dead body of Brajesh was brought to garden area on a cot. About
30 minutes thereafter, the police reached there. Thereafter, Mahesh
Singh (P.W.3), who had returned after getting the torch repaired was
sent along with Angad Singh (P.W.2), Police and the dead body. He
further claimed that at the time of incident, this witness, Munesh
(P.W.5) and Mahesh (P.W.3) were present. He further claimed that he
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
had made complaints to Human Rights Commission as well as
D.G.P.. The copy of complaint filed by this witness was shown by
the Public Prosecutor, who accepted that he had filed the said
criminal complaint Ex. P.7 and his signatures are at A to A and B to
B. In cross examination by the Court, this witness stated that initially
he was alone in the drawing room and thereafter Brajesh came there.
About 2-4 minutes thereafter, Munesh (P.W.5) also came there. This
witness and Munesh shifted the dead body on a cot to the garden
area. He further claimed that he had not informed Angad Singh
(P.W.2), that who had committed the murder. This witness
further stated that Angad Singh (P.W.2) had gone to the Police
Station all alone. A specific question was put as to whether Ramvir,
Ghanshyam, Nathu son of Choudhary, Kaushlendra, Rajesh son of
Jagdish, Mahendra @ Kallu, Kalyan, Sindhi, and Bhanupratap were
present or not, then after thinking for a while, this witness replied
that Ramvir, Ghanshyam, Kaushlendra, Nathu, Sindhi, and Kalyan
were not in the garden area. He was not in a position to say as to
whether Bhanupratap was there or not? However, he claimed that his
son Dinesh was present in the garden area. This witness specifically
stated that Ramvir Singh was not in the village, but he was in his
matrimonial house situated in Distt. Jalon. In para 16 of his cross
examination, this witness once again re-iterated that the first gun shot
was fired by Manohar. Thereafter, vinod fired a gun shot. The
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
deceased Brajesh also fired a gun shot and only thereafter,
Ramant/respondent shot the deceased. He further claimed that there
was no electricity in the village, however, he accepted, that the
village has electricity connection much prior to the death of Brajesh,
but claimed that for the last 1-2 days, there was no electricity in the
village. He further claimed that after the dead body of Brajesh was
taken by the police, he stayed back in the garden area for 4 days and
thereafter, went to the house of his relatives. He denied for want of
knowledge that Ramant Singh/respondent was blessed with a son and
any function was going on. He further admitted that while he was
shifting the dead body of Brajesh, he had heard the noice of gun
shots for 15 minutes. About 4-6-8 gun shots must have been fired. A
suggestion was given that there is a dilapidated house of Brijlal
which was denied by this witness. He further stated that he,
Mahesh (P.W.5) and Munesh (P.W.3) didnot intervene in the matter in
order to save Brajesh. However, he stated that he had suggested the
persons, not to fight. He further stated Angad Singh (P.W.2) had not
returned along with the police. He further stated that on 17-10-
2000, he came to know that Jaswant, Keshav, Mamta and Chhote @
Raghunath have also been killed and Gomati and Manohar have
sustained injuries. He further admitted that he was hiding himself as
he was afraid of his arrest. About one month after the incident, he
came to know that he has not been arrayed as an accsued, then he
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
came back from the house of his relatives. He further stated that the
complaint, Ex. P.7 was got typed on the basis of draft prepared by his
Counsel on his instructions. He was confronted with the omissions
in the complaint that Ramant/respondent had fired gun shot causing
death of Brajesh, but he could not explain as to why this fact is not
mentioned in the complaint, Ex. P.7. Certain omissions in respect of
acquitted co-accused were also put to this witness. He further denied
that children were bursting crackers and when he was confronted
with said allegation made in the complaint, Ex. P.7, then he could not
explain. He was further contronted with allegation in the complaint
that "thereafter gun shots were fired on this witness, Mahesh (P.W.3),
Munesh (P.W.5), and Ramvir (C.W.1)", then he could not explain as
to how the presence of Rajesh and Ramvir was mentioned in the
complaint Ex. P.7. It was further claimed that he met with Angad
Singh (P.W.2) after 5-6 months of the incident. It is not out of place
to mention here that this witness had also filed a copy of the F.I.R.
lodged by Angad, Ex. P.3 along with the complaint, but could not
disclose that on what date and from where he got the copy of the
same. He further accepted that the presence of this witness along
with the dead body of Brajesh is not mentioned in the F.I.R., and also
accepted that he didnot ask Angad Singh (P.W.2) about this omission.
He also could not point out as to why the presence of Munesh
(P.W.5) was also not mentioned by Angad Singh (P.W.2) in his F.I.R.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Ex. P.3. This witness admitted that the statement of Angad and this
witness was recorded in the complaint case on the same day, but
claimed that he was not present at the time, when the statement of
Angad was being recorded by the J.M.F.C., Ambah, Distt. Morena.
This witness was also shown the statement of Angad, Ex. D-14 in
which he had stated that only Mahesh, Rajesh and Kallu were
standing by the side of the dead body of Brajesh and the presence of
any other person was not disclosed, then in reply it was submitted by
this witness, that Angad must have given a wrong statement. He
further admitted that he had made a complaint to the D.G.P., Ex. D-
20. He also made a complaint to Home Minister, Ex. D-21. Home
Minister had also written a letter to S.P. Morena which is Ex. D-22.
This witness specifically admitted that these complaints/applications
were prepared by him and had signed the same after reading the same
and admitted that he had mentioned in these documents i.e., Ex. D-20
and D-21 "that dispute arose on the question of bursting of crackers".
However, in further cross examination, he took a somersault and
claimed that no dispute arose on the question of bursting of crackers.
He could not explain as to why he didnot mention in Ex. D-20 and D-
21 that the dispute arose because Manohar Singh was hurling abuses.
He admitted that he had not mentioned in Ex. D-20 and D-21 that the
deceased Brajesh sustained gun shot injury on the Kharanja and
thereafter his dead body was shifted. He was given suggestion that
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
because of function in the house of Ramant Singh/respondent, there
was light as gas patromax were burning which was denied. He
denied the suggestion that since, he was not invited in the function,
therefore, he had instigated the children to burst crackers for causing
disturbance in the function. He further denied that Ramvir was
called by this witness. He further denied that Ramvir, Ghanshyam
Singh, Nathu Singh and Kaushlendra fired gun shots. He further
denied that during firing, the deceased went to the roof of dilapidated
house of Brijlal, where he sustained gun shot fired by Ramvir. When
he was asked as to whether he ever tried to find out as to who killed
Jaswant, Keshav, Mamta and Chhote @ Raghunath and how Gomti
and Manohar sustained gun shot injuries, then an evasive reply was
given that it is the duty of the police. When he was given a
suggestion that since, Ramvir, and Rajesh were also present on the
spot, therefore, it was mentioned in the F.I.R., Ex. P.3 that Rajesh,
Ramvir and Mahesh would disclose the names of the assailants, then
it was replied by this witness, that Ramvir was not on the spot. (This
witness on his own stated that after the murder of Keshav, Jaswant,
Mamta and Chhote @ Raghunath, Ramlakhan is not in the village
and Ramlakhan is having a licensed gun). In reply to the question
put by defence, it was replied that earlier, Ramlakhan was also
detained by the police for 10-15 days, and thereafter he was set free.
In reply to the question, as to why this witness didnot complaint to
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
any body that in fact Ramlakhan has killed four persons, but his
family members are being falsely implicated, then he replied that he
had informed Vinod Sharma, T.I., but didnot inform any other
superior officer. This witness further claimed that he had not given
any false statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. When he was
confronted with his statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,
Ex. D-23, in which he had disclosed the "presence of Ramvir Singh",
then he claimed that it appears that by mistake he had made such
statement, but in fact Ramvir Singh was not in the village. He was
further confronted with omission in his statement Ex. D-23 to the
effect that "Brajesh sustained gun shot injury on Kharanja (Road)
and fell down", then he accepted that by mistake, that was not
disclosed by him. He further denied that the gun shot fired by
Ramvir Singh had hit the deceased Brajesh.
34. Munesh Singh @ Mukesh Singh Tomar (P.W.5) has stated that
on 16-10-2000 at about 8-8:30 P.M. he was sitting in his drawing
room. Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) were also
sitting. There is a Kharanja (street made up of stones) in front of his
drawing room and on the opposite side, the house of Ramant
Singh/respondent is situated. Some hot talk took place between the
deceased Brajesh and accused persons. Hot talk took place on the
issue of Kharanja. Ramant Singh/respondent fired a gun shot in air.
In retaliation, the deceased Brajesh also fired in air. Thereafter,
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Ramant Singh/respondent shot Brajesh who fell down and died on the
spot. The demeanour of the witness was recorded by the Trial Court
and it was mentioned that the witness is deposing after lot of
thinking, and is scratching his head and is deposing very slowly after
remembering the same. The demeanour recorded by the Trial Court
is as under :
lk{kh dkQh lkspdj] ;kn djus dk iz;Ru djrs gq, flj
[kqtykdj vkSj Bgjdj ;kn djds c;ku ns jgk gSA
After 15-20 minutes, Angad Singh (P.W.2) also came on the
spot. Mahesh (P.W.3) informed the entire incident to him.
Thereafter, Angad Singh (P.W.2) went to Police Station. Thereafter,
this witness, Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) shifted
the dead body of Brajesh on a cot and brought it to garden area. The
panchnama of the dead body was prepared in the garden area. On
cross examination by the Court, this witness expressed his ignorance
on the question of cause of incident. He further stated that multiple
gun shots were fired. Two gun shots were fired by Ramant
Singh/respondent, whereas one gun shot was fired by deceased
Brajesh. He further stated that Mahesh had returned from Porsa, and
had kept the torch on the platform and in the light of the torch he had
seen the faces of all the accused persons. In cross examination by the
accused persons, it was admitted by this witness that Ramvir Singh
(C.W.1) is his uncle. Ramvir (C.W.1) was the member of Gram
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Panchayat Khoyala having elected from ward no. 5. When a question
was put to him as to whether any statement was recorded by the
police or not, then after thinking for lot of time, he stated that no
statement was recorded, however, his signatures were obtained on
Panchanama etc. Thereafter, he stated that in the night of the incident
itself, he was interrogated by the police officer. (After verifying from
the police case diary, the public prosecutor informed that there is no
mention of recording of statement of this witness). This witness
admitted that Panchnama of dead body of Brajesh Ex. P.5 doesnot
contain his signatures. Thereafter, he explained that he had signed
some panchnama without reading the same, therefore, he doesnot
know that what was written in it. He further admitted that he had
given his statement in the criminal complaint filed by Ram Singh. He
has also admitted the Ex. D-24 is the statement which was recorded
in the complaint case. He further admitted that at the time of giving
such statement, he was not under any pressure. However, he stated
that since, he was not in full senses, therefore, he doesnot know that
what was deposed by him. On cross examination by Court, he further
admitted that now his health is good and is in full senses and is
hearing the questions properly. In further cross examination by
Counsel for the accused persons, this witness stated that on 17-10-
2000, he came to know about the murder of Keshav, Jaswant,
Raghunath and Mamta but expressed that he doesnot know that how
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
these persons died. He further expressed his ignorance that all the
four persons lost their lives due to gun shot injuries. He also
expressed that he doesnot know that Gomti and Manohar had also
sustained gun shot injuries. In para 13 of the cross examination, this
witness admitted that there was no enmity between the family of the
accused persons and the complainant party, but admitted that they
were not on visiting terms. He further expressed his ignorance as to
whether Ramant Singh/respondent was blessed with son or not.
However, he denied that any function was going on in the house of
Ramant Singh/respondent. He further denied that children were
bursting crackers. He denied that hot talk took place on the issue of
bursting crackers. When he was confronted with his statement Ex. D-
24, in which he had stated that "function was going on in the house of
Ramant Singh/respondent, and due to bursting of crackers, abuses
were hurled", this witness stated that it was a false statement. This
witness was further confronted with other omissions and
contradictions in his statement Ex. D.24, which could not be
explained by this witness. He further could not explain as to why he
had not disclosed the presence of Ram Singh (P.W.4) in his statement
Ex. D.24. He further stated that he had not seen any injured person in
front of the house of Ramant Singh/respondent. He denied that the
deceased Brajesh sustained gun shot injury on the roof of dilapidated
house of Brijlal and not on the Kharanja (Street made up of stones).
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
He denied that they had shifted the dead body of Brajesh from the
roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal and one shoe of the deceased was
left on the spot. He also denied, that blood of Brajesh was on the
roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal.
35. Rajesh Singh Sikarwar (P.W. 6) turned hostile and didnot
support the prosecution case. He admitted that Budh Singh is the
uncle of Ram Singh (P.W.4). He further admitted that he is the son of
daughter of Budh Singh. He further admitted that after the murder of
four persons, his mother shifted from village Khoyala, but claimed
that he was not in the village at the time of incident. However, he
admitted his signature on his statement, Ex. P.8, which was recorded
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in the complaint case, which was filed
by Ram Singh. He further admitted that in the cross S.T. No.
37/2001, he is also an accused.
36. Mahendra Singh @ Kallu Singh Tomar (P.W. 7) also turned
hostile and didnot support the prosecution story. He claimed that he
was not in the village and nothing was witnessed by him. He also
denied that Panchnama of dead body of Brajesh, Ex. P.5 contains his
signatures. In cross examination by the Public Prosecutor, this
witness admitted that there is no other person by the name of Kallu @
Mahendra Singh. He admitted that he is one of the accused in cross
S.T. No. 37/2001.
37. D.R. Mishra (P.W. 8) is the Investigating officer. He has stated
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
that on 16-10-2000, at 21:15, Angad Singh (P.W.2) along with Kallu
Singh son of Bhoop Singh, came to the police station, and gave an
information that he was in the field. He heard the noice of gun shots,
therefore, came back to village. He found that the dead body of
Brajesh was lying near the drawing room. He had a gun shot injury
on the chest. Kallu Singh, Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) and Rajesh Singh
were standing near the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body of
Brajesh was shifted to his house. Angad Singh (P.W.2) had also
informed that the names of the assailants would be disclosed by
Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ramvir Singh (P.W.4) and Rajesh (P.W.6).
Accordingly, F.I.R., Ex. P.3 was written by this witness. Thereafter,
he went to the village. Notices, Ex. P.4 were issued to Angad Singh
(P.W.2), Kallu Singh, Ramlakhan, Nihal and Bhudev for preparation
of inquest report. The dead body was identified by Dinesh and
inquest report was prepared in the light of the torch. The inquest
report is Ex. P.5. Thereafter requisition Ex. P.1 was prepared and the
dead body was sent for post mortem. One shoe of the deceased was
seized from his body. The dead body was lying on the cot. The
blood stained and plain earth was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.12.
The remaining investigation was done by R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9). On
cross examination by the Court, this witness clarified that he had
found only one shoe on the body of the deceased and the second shoe
was missing. He didnot verify from any person about the second
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
shoe. He further clarified that he did not record the statement of any
witness. In the police station, he was informed by Angad Singh
(P.W.2) that the incident took place in front of the drawing room of
Ramvir Singh. At the time of preparation of inquest report, he
enquired about the place of incident from where the dead body was
shifted to house of deceased. According to this witness, the place of
incident was about 60 yards away from the house of the deceased.
Thereafter, this witness went to the house of Ramvir Singh (C.W.1).
He further stated that since, Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) is a Panch,
therefore, this witness was already aware of the location of the house
of Ramvir Singh (C.W.1). When he went to the drawing room of
Ramvir (C.W.1), then he found that three dead bodies were lying in
front of the house of Ramant Singh/respondent, and lot of persons
were crying. Dehati Nalishi, Ex. D.25 on the oral information given
by Ramant Singh/respondent was recorded and police force was
deployed for the security of the dead bodies. By that time, Town
Inspector, Ghuraiya (P.W.9) also reached on the spot, and took over
the investigation. He further admitted that three injured persons were
also found, who were sent to Porsa Hospital. He further stated that at
the time of inquest report, only Dinesh, the brother of the deceased
Brajesh was present, and no other family member of Brajesh was
present. In cross examination by accused persons, this witness
admitted that Kallu son of Bhup Singh was present at the time of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
lodging of F.I.R., Ex. P.3 as well as Inquest report, Ex. P.15. He
further admitted that the second pair of shoe of the deceased Brajesh
was found near the dilapidated house of Brijlal. He further stated that
the F.I.R., Ex. P.3 which was lodged against unknown persons was
recorded on the information given by Angad Singh (P.W.2). No other
information except what is mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex. P.3 was given
by Angad Singh (P.W.2). The record of the cross S.T. No. 37/2001
was summoned and this witness admitted his signatures on Ex. D.1,
D.3, D.5, D.7, D.9, and D.11. Dehati Nalishi,Ex. D.25 was written by
this witness on 16-10-2000 at 11 P.M. on the information given by
Ramant Singh/respondent. F.I.R., Ex. D-26 was written by H.C.
Surendra Singh on the basis of Dehati Nalishi, Ex. D.25.
38. R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) has stated that he was posted as City
Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Ambah. The post of S.H.O., police
station Porsa was vacant, and D.R. Mishra, Sub-Inspector was in
charge of the said police station. On 16-10-2020, at about 11-11:30
P.M., he received an order on wireless from Superintendent of Police,
that multiple murders have taken place in village Khoyala, threfore,
he must reach Police Station Porsa. Thereafter, he went to Police
Station Porsa. The S.P. and Add. S.P. had also reached the Police
Station Prosa. He was instructed to investigate the offence.
Accordingly, he started investigation after taking over the case diaries
of both the crime No.s i.e., 203/2000 (present case) and 204/2000 of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
cross case. On 17-10-2000 at about 13:00 he prepared spot map, Ex.
P.13. Sr. No. 1 is the place where the blood of Brajesh was lying.
The second pair of shoe of Brajesh Singh was also seized (Sr. No.2).
The blood stained and plain earth from the said place was seized by
seizure memo Ex. P.14. No witness was present. On 1-11-2000, the
statements of Sindhi, Bhanupratap, Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Rajesh
(P.W.6) were recorded. He further stated that "children were bursting
crackers" was given by Rajesh, Ex. P.11 and it was recorded
accordingly. Thereafter, this witness was transferred. In cross
examination by the Court, this witness stated "that blood had flown
from the roof towards downward" was written at the time of
preparation of spot map. He further stated that spot map Ex. D.16
which has been filed by him in cross S.T. No. 37/2001 was prepared
on the information given by Ramant Singh/respondent, as no member
of the family of deceased or any person(s) having any knowledge
about murder of Brajesh were present. In cross examination by the
Counsel for the accused, this witness stated that Statement Ex. D.17
was written as per the statement given by Mahesh (P.W.3). The dead
bodies of Keshav(father of Ramant Singh/respondent), Jaswant
(brother of Ramant Singh/respondent) and Raghunath (another
relative of Ramant Singh/respondent) were found near the house of
Ramant Singh/respondent. The inquest report of each dead body was
prepared on the spot, where the dead bodies were lying.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
39. Ramant Singh/respondent (D.W.1), examined himself under
Section 315 of Cr.P.C. He stated that deceased Keshav was his father,
whereas deceased Jaswant was his brother. Another deceased
Raghunath @ Chhote Singh was his cousin brother. Naresh Singh,
the husband of the deceased Mamta is related to him. Similarly, the
husband of injured Gomti and injured Manohar are related to him.
On 16-10-2000, a function was going on in his house on the occasion
of birth of his son. Food was being served. At that time, Sindhi,
Kallu @ Kalyan, Bhanupratap, Chhote @ Mahesh, Rajesh Sikarwar,
Kaushlendra, were bursting crackers as a result, the waste papers
were falling in the food. They were requested to burst crackers after
15 minutes. Thereafter, they started hurling abuses. Kaushlendra
Singh brought 12 bore gun. Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) brought Mouser
and challenged that now he will see that who can dare to stop them
from bursting crackers. Ghanshyam and Nathu son of Choudhary,
also brought their guns. Ramvir (C.W.1) fired a gun shot in air,
which hit the deceased Brajesh who was standing on the roof of
house of Brijlal. Thereafter, Ramvir came nearer to the platform and
shot Jaswant. Thereafter, he shot Keshav Singh who also fell down.
This witness tried to run inside the house in order to save himself,
and one gun shot was fired by Ramvir (C.W.1) which hit in the
abdominal region of Mamta after hitting the door. Raghunath who
was also standing near by, tried to run away, and Ghanshyam fired a
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
gun shot causing injury on his chest. Thereafter, Nathu fired a gun
shot causing injury to Gomati. He was assaulted by Mahendra @
Kallu by lathi. After some time, he sat by the side of the dead body
of his brother. At about 12-12:30 A.M., D.R. Sharma and other
police officers came on the spot and accordingly they were informed
about the incident. Dehati Nalishi, Ex. D.25 was written which bears
his signatures. On the next day, the S.H.O. prepared the spot map, Ex.
D.16. He further denied that he had shot Brajesh. He claimed that
they have been falsely implicated in order develop pressure in the
case of murder of Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and Raghunath. He was
cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. He stated that there was no
enmity between him and the family of Brajesh. He had given
invitation to the complainant party including Ramvir but for the last
3-4 months, they were not on visiting terms. He further claimed that
Ghanshyam, Kaushlendra, Bhanupratap, Nathu, Rajesh, Mahesh,
Kalyan, Sindhi (accused in cross S.T. No. 37/2001) had also attended
the function. He further stated that he had shown the waste piece of
papers of burnt crackers as well as used plates to the investigating
officer. He further denied that since, four persons from his side had
expired, therefore, the police had conducted one sided investigation.
He further denied that Ramvir (C.W.1) was in his matrimonial home
in village Patrai, Distt. Jalon. In cross examination by the Court, a
suggestion was given that since Brajesh was causing rukus by
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
standing on the roof of Brijlal, therefore, he was shot by this witness,
then he denied the same. He further denied that because of gun shot
fired by this witness, the accused persons of cross S.T. No. 37/2001
might have fired gun shots.
40. The Trial Court has acquitted Ramant Singh/respondent on the
ground that he had caused death of Brajesh in exercise of his right of
private defence. However, by supporting the acquittal of Ramant
Singh/respondent, the Counsel for respondent submitted that in fact
Ramant Singh/respondent didnot fire any gun shot and he has been
falsely implicated. Thus, the Counsel for the respondent has attacked
the findings regarding exercise of right of private defence and sought
acquittal on the ground of innocence.
41. Now the pivotal question for determination is that whether
Ramant Singh/respondent caused death of Brajesh in exercise of right
of private defence or no gun shot was fired by Ramant
Singh/respondent and he is an innocent person?
42. The entire prosecution story is based on the evidence of Angad
(P.W.2), Mahesh (P.W.3) Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh
Singh (P.W.5). It is not out of place to mention here that Mahesh is
one of the accused in cross S.T. No. 37/2001. Other prosecution
witnesses namely Rajesh Sikarwar (P.W. 6) and Mahendra @ Kallu
Singh (P.W.7) who were also facing trial in cross S.T. No. 37/2001
have turned hostile and didnot support the prosecution case. It is also
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
not out of place to mention here that the Shri Parashar who was
earlier appearing as Public Prosecutor had given the name of Ramvir
Singh (C.W.1) as Prosecution witness, and accordingly, he was also
summoned as Prosecution witness. However, when he appeared
before the Trial Court, then the subsequently appointed Public
Prosecutor, Shri Pachouri, requested to give up Ramvir Singh
(C.W.1), but since, it was mentioned in the F.I.R., Ex. P.3, that
Ramvir (C.W.1) would disclose the names of assailants, therefore,
Ramvir Singh was examined as Court witness.
43. The following factual aspects arise in the matter :
(i) How the incident took place ?
(a) Whether the witnesses have suppressed the very genesis of the
incident and if so, its effect?
(b) Who started the incident?
(c) Non-recovery of Katta of Brajesh.
(ii) Whether Ram Singh (P.W.4), Munesh @ Mukesh (P.W.5) had
seen the incident of murder of Brajesh?
(iii) Whether Mahesh (P.W.3) is a reliable witness?
(iv) Why the dead body of the deceased Brajesh was shifted by his
family members?
(v) Where the deceased suffered gun shot injury i.e., whether on
the Kharanja as claimed by the witnesses or on the roof of the
dilapidated house of Brijlal, as claimed by Ramant
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Singh/respondent? Whether the place of incident has been changed
by the prosecution, then its effect.
(vi) Whether the prosecution has explained the murder of four
persons from the family of Ramant Singh/respondent namely,
Keshav (father of the respondent), Jaswant (Real brother of the
respondent), Raghunath @Chhote Singh (Cousin brother of the
respondent, Smt. Mamta (related to the respondent), if not, its effect?
(vii) Whether the prosecution has explained the gun shot injuries
sustained by Gomati and Manohar, and if not, its effect?
(viii) Whether Angad Singh (P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram
Singh (P.W.4), and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) are interested
witnesses and if so, its effect?
(ix) Whether the witnesses absconded immediately after the
incident and if so, then its effect?
(x) What is effect of an attempt made by Public Prosecutor for
giving up Ramvir Singh (C.W.1)?
(xi) Whether Ramant Singh/respondent had caused death of
Brajesh in exercise of right of private defence?
(i) How the incident took place ?
(a) Whether the witnesses have suppressed the very genesis of
the incident and if so, its effect?
44.(i) F.I.R., Ex. P.3 was lodged by Angad Singh (P.W.2) who
is not an eye witness. Even he was not in a position to disclose the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
names of the assailants. There is no whisper of very genesis of the
incident in the F.I.R. However, in the F.I.R., it is mentioned that the
names of the assailants would be disclosed by Mahesh (P.W.3),
Ramvir (C.W.1) and Rajesh Singh (P.W.6).
(ii) Mahesh (P.W.3) has stated in para 43 of his cross
examination that when he returned back from Porsa, then lady
members of his family informed him that children are bursting
crackers, but when he reached the drawing room, he found that no
firework was going on, but hot talk was going on between the
deceased Brajesh and accused persons. The attention of this witness
was drawn towards his statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C., Ex. D.17, but he denied that he had made any statement "that
children were bursting crackers". Similarly in his statement recorded
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., this witness has specifically stated that
"his brother Brajesh (Deceased) and children were bursting
crackers". Whereas in the Court evidence, this witness has taken a
somersault and disowned his previous version, "that children and
deceased were bursting crackers".
(iii) Ram Singh (P.W. 4) had filed a criminal complaint, Ex.
P.7. In para 2 of the complaint, he had specifically stated that on the
occasion of Divali, the deceased "Brajesh and children were bursting
crackers". In his statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,
Ex. P.10, this witness had specifically stated that the" deceased
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Brajesh and other children were bursting crackers". This witness was
confronted with allegation made in para 2 of the complaint Ex. P.7
"that Brajesh and children were bursting crackers", then he claimed
that it was wrongly written. This witness had also written letters to
D.G.P., Ex. D-20 and to the Home Minister, Ex. D-21, in which also,
he had claimed that the dispute arose on the question of bursting of
crackers. The attention of this witness was drawn towards his
allegation made in Ex.D.21 that the dispute arose on the question of
bursting of crackers, then it was accepted by him, that such an
allegation was written by him in Ex. D.21. However, immediately
thereafter, he changed his version and claimed that the "dispute arose
as Manohar was abusing". Thus, it is clear that this witness has also
taken a somersault on the question of very genesis of the incident.
(iv) Munesh Singh @ Mukesh Singh Tomar (P.W.5) has also
claimed that the dispute arose because Manohar was abusing.
However, the attention of this witness was drawn towards his
statement recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, Ex.D.24, in which
he had claimed that "children were bursting crackers". In reply, it
was merely stated that it was wrongly written in the statement, Ex.
D.24. Further in para 14 of his cross examination, he denied that the
deceased and children were bursting crackers.
(v) Ramant Singh/respondent (D.W.1) has taken a specific
stand that on the occasion of birth of his son, a function was going on
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
and food was being served. The complainant party was bursting
crackers as a result of which waste papers were fallling in the food,
therefore, they were requested to burst the crackers after 15 minutes.
Then on this issue, the complainant party challenged the accused
party and gun shots were fired.
(vi) It is not out of place to mention here, that Ramant
Singh/Respondent had lodged the Dehati Nalishi, Ex. D.25 at 23:00,
in which he had specifically alleged that the incident took place on
the question of fireworks by the complainant party.
(vii) Thus, it is held that the witnesses have suppressed the
very genesis of the incident, and have tried to develop a different
story, which is not supported by their version, which was taken by
them in their complaint, Ex. P.7 and their statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or under Section
202 of Cr.P.C.
(b) Who started the incident ?
45.(i) Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) has stated in para 2 of his
examination in chief, that all the accused persons surrounded the
deceased and thereafter, Brajesh was shot dead by Ramant
Singh/respondent. However, in para 3 of his examination in chief, he
improved his version, by saying that gun shot was fired by Ramnat
Singh/respondent, and thereafter, the deceased Brajesh fired gun
shot. But in para 30 of his cross examination, this witness has stated
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
that first gun shot was fired by Brajesh and thereafter, Ramant
Singh/respondent shot the deceased. In para 31 of his cross
examination, he further clarified that gun shot was fired by Ramant
Singh/respondent, after about one minute of gun shot fired by
deceased Brajesh.
(ii) Ram Singh (P.W.4) has given a different version.
According to him, first gun shot was fired by Manohar Singh and
thereafter, Vinod fired another shot. Only thereafter, the deceased
fired gun shot and then the deceased was shot by Ramant
Singh/respondent.
(iii) Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) has given a different
version. In para 3 of his examination in chief, it was stated by him
that first gun shot was fired by Ramant Singh/respondent in air. In
retaliation, Brajesh also fired one gun shot in air and thereafter, he
was shot by Ramant Singh/respondent.
(iv) Thus, it is clear that all the three eye witnesses have
given different story. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as to how the incident took place.
(c) Non-recovery of Katta of the deceased Brajesh.
46.(i) In para 29 of cross examination, Mahesh (P.W.3) has
stated that after sustaining gun shot injury, the katta of Brajesh fell
down from his hand, and they had left the Katta on the spot. Ram
Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) have also stated
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
that Brajesh was having a Katta and he too had fired a gun shot, but
the katta of Brajesh was not found on the spot. The prosecution has
failed to prove that why and by whom the katta of the deceased
Brajesh was removed from the spot. Thus, non-recovery of katta of
the deceased Brajesh from the spot also makes the theory suspicious.
Whether Ram Singh (P.W.4), Munesh @ Mukesh Singh Tomar
(P.W.5) had seen the incident of murder of Brajesh?
47.(i) Angad Singh Tomar (P.W.2) lodged the F.I.R., Ex. P.3
and in the said F.I.R. Ex. P.3, he had disclosed that after hearing the
noice of gun shots, when he reached the village, he found that Kallu
Singh, Mahesh Singh and Rajesh Singh were standing near the dead
body of Brajesh and the names of the assailants shall be disclosed by
Mahesh Singh, Ramvir Singh and Rajesh Singh.
(ii) In the F.I.R., the names of Munesh @ Mukesh Singh
(P.W.5) and Ram Singh (P.W.4) were not mentioned. It is not out of
place to mention here that Rajesh Singh Sikarwar (P.W.6) and Kallu
Singh @ Mahendra Singh (P.W.7) were cited by the prosecution as
prosecution witnesses, but both of them turned hostile. It is also not
out of place to mention here that Rajesh Singh Sikarwar (P.W.6) and
Kallu Singh @ Mahendra Singh (P.W.7) were accused in cross S.T.
No. 37/2001.
(iii) In para 2 of his examination-in-chief, Angad Singh
Tomar (P.W.2) has stated that when he reached the village, he was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
informed by Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Mahesh (P.W.3) that Ramant
Singh/respondent has shot the deceased. Whereas Ram Singh (P.W.4)
in para 6 of his cross examination by the Court, stated that he had
merely instructed Angad Singh Tomar (P.W.2) to inform the police
that murder has taken place in village Khoyala. He further
specifically stated that he didnot inform Angad Singh Tomar (P.W.2)
as to who killed the deceased. Again in para 11 of his cross
examination, Ram Singh (P.W.4) specifically stated that he had
instructed Angad Singh Tomar (P.W.2) to inform the police. Thus, the
stand taken by Angad Singh (P.W.2) that he was informed by Ram
Singh (P.W.4) has been belied by Ram Singh (P.W.4) himself.
(iv) Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) has stated in para 6 of his
examination in chief, that he had narrated the incident to Angad
Singh (P.W.2). He further stated in para 12 of his cross examination,
that he, Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh (P.W.5) were present on the
spot and he had informed Angad Singh (P.W.2) about the incident.
However, Ram Singh (P.W.4) in para 11 of his cross examination
expressed his ignorance as to whether Angad Singh (P.W.2) had any
talk with Mahesh (P.W.3) and Munesh (P.W.5) or not? Again the
same stand was taken by Ram Singh (P.W. 4) in para 12 of his cross
examination. In para 13, this witness has further stated that Angad
Singh (P.W.2) came directly to him and thereafter went to police
station.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
(v) Munesh @ Mukesh Singh Tomar (P.W.5) has stated in
para 4 of his examination in chief, that Mahesh (P.W.4) narrated the
entire incident to Angad Singh (P.W.2).
(vi) Angad Singh (P.W. 2) has stated in para 12 of his
examination-in-chief, that Kallu didnot go along with him to the
police station, but Mahesh (P.W.3) went to the police station along
with Angad Singh (P.W.2). Whereas Mahesh (P.W.3) has stated that
Angad Singh (P.W.2) had gone to the police station all alone.
(vii) If Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) was accompanying Angad
Singh (P.W.2) at the time of lodging of F.I.R., Ex. P.3, then there was
no reason for not disclosing the names of the assailants. Further,
there was no reason for Angad Singh (P.W.2) to say that names of the
assailants would be disclosed by Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ramvir
Singh (C.W.1) and Rajesh Singh (P.W.6).
(viii) Thus, when Angad Singh (P.W.2) lodged the report, he
was not knowing the names of the assailants and the stand of the
prosecution witnesses, that Mahesh (P.W.3) had informed Angad
Singh (P.W.2) about the names of the assailants is not trust worthy.
(ix) There is one more interesting aspect of the matter. Ram
Singh (P.W.4) is the father of deceased Brajesh, whereas Mahesh
Singh Tomar (P.W.3) is the brother of the deceased. The police
issued notices to the witnesses for preparation of inquest report, but
neither Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) nor Ram Singh (P.W.4) were present.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Notice, Ex. P.3 was issued to (i) Angad Singh (ii) Kallu @ Mahendra
Singh (P.W.7), (iii) Ramlakhan, (iv) Nihal Singh and (v) Bhupendra.
The inquest report, Ex. P.4 was signed by above mentioned 5
persons. Even the dead body of the deceased Brajesh was received
by Angad Singh (P.W.2). One shoe of Brajesh and blood stained
earth and plain earth was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. P.12 in the
presence of Dinesh Singh and Suresh Singh. Crime detail form was
prepared by R.S. Ghuraiya,Ex. P.13 on 17-10-2000, in the presence
of one Bhudev Singh and Ashok. Further vide seizure memo Ex.
P.14, R.S. Ghuraiya had collected blood stained, plain earth from the
roof of dilapidated house and one shoe of Brajesh was seized in the
presence of Bhudev and Ashok. Cloths of the deceased Brajesh were
seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.15 in the presence of Bhudev and
Ashok. Thus, neither Ram Singh (P.W.4) nor Munesh @ Mukesh
Singh (P.W. 5) participated in any of the police proceedings
conducted in the night of 16-10-2000 itself or on 17-10-2000.
Further, R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) in para 4 of his examination-in-chief
has stated that on 17-10-2000, no witness of incident was present.
Ram Singh (P.W.4) has further stated in his cross examination, that
after the incident, he went to the house of their relatives, and came
back only when he came to know that he is not wanted in cross S.T.
No. 37/2001. However, he tried to suggest that he left the village
after four days of incident. Further in para 31 of the cross
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
examination he admitted that while drafting complaint, Ex. P.7, he
didnot inform his Counsel that he had sent Angad Singh (P.W.2) to
the police Station. Thus, there is nothing on record to suggest the
presence of Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.
5), either on 16-10-2000 or 17-10-2000. Thus, it is clear that Ram
Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh Tomar (P.W.5) didnot
see the incident. Accordingly, it is held that the Trial Court has
rightly held that Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh
(P.W.5) have not witnessed the incident and they are not eye-
witnesses.
Whether Mahesh (P.W.3) is a reliable witness?
48.(i) The statement of Mahesh (P.W.3) was recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C on 1-11-2000, whereas the incident took place
on 16-10-2000. As already pointed out in the previous paragraph, all
the proceedings on 16-10-2000, were done by the police in the
presence of other witnesses. Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) had not
participated in any of the proceedings. Further, R.S. Ghuraiya
(P.W.9) has stated in para 4 of his examination-in-chief that on 17-
10-2000, no witness of incident was present. Thus, it is clear that
immediately after the incident, Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) was not found
in the village. Further, this witness has stated that the moment, he
came back from Porsa and was parking his cycle, then he saw the
incident. It is further stated that he had seen the entire incident in the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
light of the torch. If Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) had seen the incident,
and had narrated the same to Angad Singh (P.W.2), then there was no
occasion not to disclose the names of the assailants in the F.I.R.
Thus, it is clear that the information in the F.I.R. that "the names of
the assailants would be disclosed by Mahesh, Ramvir and Rakesh"
was deliberately given, in order to gain time to implicate the accused
persons. Further, it is the case of the witnesses namely Angad Singh
(P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @
Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) that Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) and Rajesh Singh
(P.W.6) were not present on the spot. Even Rajesh Singh Sikarwar
(P.W.6) and Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) have denied their presence in the
village at the time of incident. Whereas Kallu @ Mahendra Singh
(P.W.7) has stated that he never went to Police Station along with
Angad Singh (P.W.2). This witness also disowned his statement
dated 1-11-2000. Further, this witness had claimed that he had
returned from Porsa after getting his torch repaired. However, he
accepted that neither this fact was disclosed by him either to D.R.
Mishra (P.W.8) nor in his statement recorded under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., Ex. D.18. Further, Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) was an accused in
cross S.T. No. 37/2001. Non-participation of Mahesh Singh (P.W.3)
in any proceedings of police, non-receipt of dead body of his own
brother, recording of his statement on 1-11-2000 i.e., after 15 days of
incident, material discrepancies with the evidence of Ram Singh
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
(P.W.4), Angad Singh (P.W.2) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W. 5)
regarding the manner in which the incident took place, material
omissions and contradictions in the statement Ex. D.17 and D.18,
suppression of very genesis of the incident, are some of the reasons,
which make the evidence of Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) unreliable. It
appears that Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) is a planted witness and hence not
reliable. Accordingly, it is held that the Trial Court has rightly held
that Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) has not witnessed the incident and he is
not an eye-witnesses.
Why the dead body of the deceased Brajesh was shifted by his
family members?
And
Where the deceased Brajesh suffered gun shot injury i.e.,
whether on the Kharanja as claimed by the witnesses or on the
roof of the dilapidated house of Brijlal, as claimed by Ramant
Singh/respondent? If the place of incident has been changed by
the prosecution, then its effect.
49.(i) Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) has admitted in para 19 of his
cross examination, that buildings have been rightly shown in Spot
Map, Ex. D.15. In para 20 of his cross examination, this witness has
further admitted that dilapidated house of Brijlal has been rightly
shown in spot map Ex. D.16. He further admitted that the dilapidated
house of Brijlal is adjoining to the house of deceased Keshav Singh,
father of Ramant Singh/Respondent. However, Ram Singh (P.W.4) in
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
para 22 of his cross examination has denied any dilapidated house of
Brijlal.
(ii) According to the defence, the deceased Brajesh was standing
on the roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal, where he sustained gun
shot fired by Ramvir. According to R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) blood was
found on the roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal which was shown in
Spot Map Ex. D.16. R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) also stated that he had
seized one shoe of Brajesh which was lying behind the house of
Keshav. He further stated that he had also collected blood stained
and plain earth near the place where shoe was lying. He further
stated, that he had collected blood stained and plain earth from the
roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal. R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) has stated
in para 8 of his cross examination by Court, that at the time of
preparation of spot map Ex. D.16, none of the family member of the
Brajesh was present, therefore, the spot map, Ex. D.16 was prepared
on the information of Ramant Singh/respondent. In the present case,
Spot Map Ex. P.13 was prepared by R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) in the
presence of Ashok and Bhudev whereas spot map Ex. D.16 was
prepared by R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) in the cross case no. 204/2000,
which is subject matter of cross S.T. No. 37/2001. In spot map Ex.
P.13 also, R.S. Ghuraiya has shown one shoe of Brajesh at Sr. No. 2
which is adjoining to the dilapidated house of Brijlal. Blood was also
shown at Serial No.2. It is also mentioned in Spot Map Ex. P.13, that
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
blood had flown downward from the roof of dilapidated house of
Brijlal. Although, there is nothing on record to suggest that the blood
found on the roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal as well as blood
found at serial no. 2 in Spot Map Ex. P.13 was that of Brajesh, but it
is not the case of the prosecution in the cross case, that any dead body
of the family of Ramant Singh/respondent was found at the said
place. From Spot Map Ex. D.16, it is clear that the dead bodies of
Keshav, Jaswant and Ramnath @ Chhote Singh were found in front
of the house of Ramant Singh/respondent, whereas Mamta died in the
hospital. The presence of one shoe at serial no. 2, indicates, that in
fact Brajesh must have sustained gun shot while he was on the roof of
dilapidated house of Brijlal, and thereafter, his dead body was
removed and was brought to the house of the deceased and thereafter
it was shifted to garden area. The witnesses have admitted that the
dead body was shifted by them from Kharanja (as claimed by them)
to the garden area. Why the dead body of Brajesh was shifted has not
been explained by the witnesses. Thus, it is clear that the witnesses
have tried to suppress the incident and tried to shift the place of
occurrence from the dilapidated house of Brijlal to Kharanja from
where the dead body was shifted to garden area. Thus, it is clear that
the prosecution has suppressed the "place of incident" where Brajesh
sustained gun shot injury. Under these circumstances, the non-
recovery of katta of the deceased Brajesh also assumes importance.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
(iii) The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs.
State of M.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 697 has held as under :
24.......It is only when the defence is able to establish that
the change of the spot was deliberate and such a change
was so substantial as would affect the whole prosecution
story, that such discrepancies assume importance.
(iv) If the facts of this case are considered then it is clear that four
persons from accused side lost their lives. All the witnesses i.e.,
Angad Singh (P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4),
Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5), Rajesh Singh Sikarwar (P.W.6)
and Kallu @ Mahendra Singh (P.W.7) have expressed their ignorance
about the murder of Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and Raghunath. The
witnesses by shifting the place of incident to Kharanja in front of the
house of Ram Singh (P.W.4) tried to plead that it was the accused
party who was aggressor, and the witnesses namely Mahesh Singh
(P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W. 5)
had occasion to witness the incident. The absence of one shoe on the
body of Brajesh as mentioned in inquest report, Ex. P.4, and the fact
that one shoe was found near the dilapidated house of Brijlal as well
as presence of blood on the roof of dilapidated house of Brijlal,
clearly establishes, that the witnesses were trying to suppress/destroy
material evidence. Further, Mahesh (P.W.3) has admitted that
dilapidated house of Brijlal has been rightly shown in Spot Map Ex.
D.16, whereas Ram Singh (P.W.4) has claimed that there is no
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
dilapidated house of Brijlal. From Spot Map Ex. P.13, it is clear that
the dilapidated house of Brijlal is adjoining to the house of Keshav
Singh (deceased in cross case) and the house of Ramvir (C.W.1)/Ram
Singh (P.W.4) is on its opposite with Kharanja in between. Thus, it is
clear that the witnesses are trying to hide material facts. As per Spot
Map Ex. D.16, the distance between dilapidated house of Brijlal and
house of Ramvir (C.W.1) is 21 1/2 ft.s The distance between
dilapidated house and garden area of Ramvir is 365 steps. Under
these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the
change of place of occurrence from the dilapidated house of Brijlal to
Kharanja was substantial, which affects the entire prosecution story.
(v) Now there is another twist in the story. Dr. D.C. Parashar
(P.W.1) could not explain the direction of gun shot. He has stated
that either the gun shot could have been fired from parallel place, or
it might have been fired from a higher place, or even could have been
fired upwards. If the evidence of R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) is considered
then it is clear that in Spot Map, Ex. P.13 and D.16, he had found that
blood had flown from the roof of the dilapidated house of Brijlal
towards downards. Further, another shoe of the deceased Brajesh
was found near the dilapdiated house of Brijlal. According to Dr.
D.C. Parashar (P.W.1), the movement of bullet was downward. If the
defence of the respondent is considered, then it is possible that the
deceased Brajesh might be looking downwards from the roof of the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
dilapidated house of Brijlal and in that position, he must have
suffered a gun shot fired from the ground. This possibility is further
supported by the fact that blood was found on the outer wall of
dilapidated house of Brijlal. In such a situation the downward
movement of bullet is possible. The entry wound was on right side
over sternum of chest at last border, 6 cms below the supra sternal
notch and the exit wound was on left side of back of lower border of
scapula. Looking to the position of entry wound and exit wound, it
cannot be said that there was much angle in the movement track.
Under these circumstances, the defence of the respondent, that in fact
Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) had fired a gun shot in air, which hit the
deceased becomes probable. Thus, in all probabilities the deceased
must have suffered a gun shot injury while he was standing on the
roof of the dilapidated house of Brijlal, therefore, his dead body was
shifted by the witnesses, in order to change the place of occurrence.
Whether the prosecution has explained the murder of four
persons from the family of Ramant Singh/respondent namely,
Keshav (father of the respondent), Jaswant (Real brother of the
respondent), Raghunath @Chhote Singh (Cousin brother of the
respondent, Smt. Mamta (related to the respondent), if not, its
effect?
And
Whether the prosecution has explained the gun shot injuries
sustained by Gomati and Manohar, and if not, its effect?
50.(i) None of the witnesses, i.e., Angad Singh (P.W.2),
Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4), Munesh @ Mukesh
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Singh (P.W.5), have tried to explain the murder of four persons,
namely Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and Raghunath. They have also not
explained the injuries sustained by Gomati and Manohar Singh. The
postmortem reports of Keshav Ex. D.2, Raghunath Ex. D.4, and of
Jaswant Ex. D.6 have been proved by the defence. Similarly, the
M.L.C. of Late Mamta, Ex. D.12, M.L.C. of Gomati Ex. D.8 and of
Manohar Ex. D.10 have been proved by the defence. It is also clear
from the spot map Ex. D.16 and Ex. P.13, that the houses of Ramvir
(C.W.1) and Keshav (father of Ramant/respondent) were opposite to
each other. Dilapidated house of brijlal is also situated in front of the
house of Ramvir (C.W.1). The accused persons in cross case were
firing from the place which has been shown by Triangle in Spot Map
Ex. D.16. The dead bodies of Jaswant, Keshav and Raghunath were
lying infront of the house of Keshav. The stand of the witnesses, that
they are not aware of the fact that how four deceased persons
sustained gun shot injuries, clearly indicates, that they are trying to
suppress important aspects of the matter.
(ii) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Rajendra Singh, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 106, has held as under :
8. All the witnesses had categorically stated that they had
not beaten the respondent and seen any injury on the
accused. But the evidence establishes that the respondent
had two contused lacerated wounds: one on his face and
one on his head. The injuries were bleeding injuries and
visible and yet the witnesses stated that they had not seen
any injury on the person of the respondent. That would
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
mean that neither the family members of Harveer nor the
two independent witnesses were willing to give a true
version and had tried to suppress the part played by some
of them which had resulted in causing injuries to the
respondent. The High Court was therefore, justified in not
placing reliance on their evidence.
(iii) The Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v.
Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 145
has held as under :
17. The first question which arises for consideration is
what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained
by the accused persons. In Rajender Singh v. State of
Bihar, Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar and Vijayee
Singh v. State of U.P., all three-Judge Bench decisions, the
view taken consistently is that it cannot be held as a matter
of law or invariably a rule that whenever the accused
sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution
is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the
prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be
disbelieved. Before non-explanation of the injuries on the
persons of the accused persons by the prosecution
witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the court has to
be satisfied of the existence of two conditions: (i) that the
injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature;
and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the
time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of
injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence
consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the
defence gives a version which competes in probability with
that of the prosecution.
(iv) The Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh Vs.
State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 has held as under :
12. PW 8 Dr S.P. Jaiswal who had examined Brahmdeo
deceased and had conducted the post-mortem of the
deceased had also examined the accused Dasrath Singh,
whom he identified in the court, on April 22, 1966 and
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
found the following injuries on his person:
"1.Bruise 3? × ½ ? on the dorsal part of the right
forearm about in the middle and there was compound
fracture of the fibula bone about in the middle.
2.Incised wound 1? × 2 mm × skin subcutaneous deep
on the lateral part of the left upper arm, near the
shoulder joint.
3.Punctured wound 1/2? × 2 mm × 4 mm on the
lateral side of the left thigh about 5 inches below the
hip joint.
According to the doctor Injury 1 was grievous in nature as
it resulted in compound fracture of the fibula bone. The
other two injuries were also serious injuries which had been
inflicted by a sharp-cutting weapon. Having regard to the
circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that
Dasrath Singh must have received these injuries in the
course of the assault, because it has not been suggested or
contended that the injuries could be self-inflicted nor is it
believable. In these circumstances, therefore, it was the
bounden duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable
explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused
Dasrath Singh in the course of the occurrence. Not only the
prosecution has given no explanation, but some of the
witnesses have made a clear statement that they did not see
any injuries on the person of the accused. Indeed if the
eyewitnesses could have given such graphic details
regarding the assault on the two deceased and Dasain Singh
and yet they deliberately suppressed the injuries on the
person of the accused, this is a most important
circumstance to discredit the entire prosecution case. It is
well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and
hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved
to have sustained injuries in the course of the same
occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the
prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and
shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had
been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible
conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a
true version of the occurrence. This matter was argued
before the High Court and we are constrained to observe
that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of
this Court in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar tried to brush it
aside on most untenable grounds. The question whether the
Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries is
wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the very
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
doctor who examined one of the deceased and the
prosecution witnesses is the person who examined the
appellant Dasrath Singh also. In the case referred to above,
this Court clearly observed as follows:
"The trial court as well as the High Court wholly
ignored the significance of the injuries found on the
appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13
injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the
evidence of PW 15 that he noticed injuries on the
person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before
him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the
version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at
the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised.
Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty
to explain those injuries ... In our judgment the failure
of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that
regard shows that evidence of the prosecution
witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any
rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise
the plea taken by the appellants."
This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution
fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results
follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is
untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken
by the appellants. The High Court in the present case has
not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court
in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent
cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v.
State of Punjab which was also a murder case, this Court,
while following an earlier case, observed as follows: [SCC
p. 531 : SCC (Cri) p. 621, para 20]
"In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima one of us
(Untwalia, J.) speaking for the Court, observed as
follows: [SCC p. 13 : SCC (Cri) p. 390, para 17]
In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to
explain the injuries on the person of an accused,
depending on the facts of each case, any of the three
results may follow:
(1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the
members of the prosecution party in exercise of the
right of self-defence.
(2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence
doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be
held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
(3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.
The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four-
corners of either of the first two principles laid down by
this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were
fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were
protected by the right of private defence or that if the
prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of
the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the
genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery,
which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case."
It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the
injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the
occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance from which the court can draw the following
inferences:
"(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis
and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not
presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of
the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a
most material point and therefore their evidence is
unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which
explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is
rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the
prosecution case."
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater
importance where the evidence consists of interested or
inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version
which competes in probability with that of the prosecution
one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that
the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which
have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be
difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4
and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses
have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the
person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor
the High Court appears to have given due consideration to
this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the
prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this
Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima there may be cases
where the non-explanation of the injuries by the
prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries
sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where
the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and
disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that
it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the
prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is
certainly not such a case, and the High Court was,
therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in
the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.
(v) Thus, it is clear that non-explanantion of every injury
found on the body of the accused would not give dent to the
prosecution story, unless and until, it is proved that the injury on the
body of the accused was of serious nature and the said injury must
have been caused at the time of occurrence. Therefore, in case of
failure to explain injuries on the accused, it may appear that (i) the
accused might have acted in exercise of its private defence, or (ii) the
prosecution story is not reliable, or (iii) the non-explanation of
injuries would not have any effect on the prosecution story.
(vi) If the non-explanation of death of four persons, namely
Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta and Raghunath, out of whom, dead bodies
of Keshav, Jaswant and Raghunath were lying at few yards from the
house of Ramvir (C.W.1) and their death also took place at the time
of occurrence, and Mamta (who later on expired during treatment),
Gomati and Manohar Singh, had sustained gun shot injuries, is
considered in the light of the fact, that the witnesses have not only
suppressed the vary genesis of the incident, but also shifted the place
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
of occurrence by removing the dead body of Brajesh by shifting to a
place which is more than 365 steps away from the dilapidated house
of Brijlal and expressing their ignorance about the death of other four
persons, specifically when they have admitted that they had heard
noice of multiple gun shots, this Court is of the considered opinion,
that non-explanation of death of four persons, namely Keshav,
Jaswant, Raghuntha @ Chhote Singh and Mamta, and non-
explanation of injuries sustained by Gomati and Manohar Singh,
makes the entire prosecution story doubtful which cannot be relied
upon at all.
Whether Angad Singh (P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh
(P.W.4), and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) are interested
witnesses and if so, its effect?
51.(i) It is well established principle of law that merely because
a witness is a related witness, would not be sufficient to discard his
evidence, unless and until it is proved that he is an interested witness.
The relationship of the witnesses with the deceased Brajesh is
as under :
(a) Angad Singh (P.W.2) is the Cousin brother of Ram Singh
(P.W.4), who is father of deceased Brajesh.
(b) Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) is the real brother of the deceased
Brajesh.
(c) Ram Singh (P.W.4) is father of the deceased Brajesh.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
(d) Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) is cousin brother of the
deceased Brajesh.
(e) Rajesh Singh Sikarwar (P.W.6)is the maternal cousin brother of
the deceased Brajesh. This witness has turned hostile.
(f) Kallu @ Mahendra Singh (P.W.7) is the Cousin brother of the
deceased Brajesh. This witness has turned hostile.
(g) Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) is the uncle [brother of Ram Singh
(P.W.4)] of the deceased Brajesh and has not supported the
prosecution story.
It is well established principle of law that the testimony
of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a
related witness, unless and until it is proved that such related witness
is an interested witness also.
(ii) "Interested witness" has been defined by the Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in
(2019) 19 SCC 567 as under :
13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are
close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled
that a related witness cannot be said to be an "interested"
witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.
This Court has elucidated the difference between
"interested" and "related" witnesses in a plethora of cases,
stating that a witness may be called interested only when he
or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation,
which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the
witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the
accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and
thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for
instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Amit v. State of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy).
Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v.
State of T.N., in the following terms, by referring to the
three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki:
(Ganapathi case, SCC p. 555, para 14)
"14. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A
witness may be called "interested" only when he or
she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation;
in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused
person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is
the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a
case cannot be said to be "interested"."
14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is
witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence
on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence
of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by
labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the
earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in
criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v.
State of Punjab, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366,
para 26)
"26. A witness is normally to be considered
independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually means
unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against
the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.
Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen
the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent
person."
15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his
or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure
only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable,
cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of
this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry): (SCC
p. 213, para 23)
"23. We are of the considered view that in cases
where the court is called upon to deal with the
evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of
the court, while appreciating the evidence of such
witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be
cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence
given by the interested witnesses but the court must
not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary
endeavour of the court must be to look for
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be
ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from
the mouth of a person who is closely related to the
victim."
(iii) Thus, if a witness has a direct or indirect interest in
seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and
thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, then he would be
called an "interested witness".
(iv) If the facts of this case are considered, then it is clear
that all the witnesses are closely related to the deceased. In the same
occurrence, four other persons lost their lives and 2 got injured. The
complainant party is facing trial for murder of four persons as well as
for attempting to murder two persons. The witnesses have not
explained the death and injuries sustained by injured persons. There
are material improvements, omissions and contradictions in their
evidence. They also tried to shift the place of occurrence and also
shifted the dead body of Brajesh to a distant place for no reason at
all. Under these circumstances, it is held that Angad Singh (P.W.2),
Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh
Singh (P.W.5) are "interested witnesses", and close scrutiny of their
evidence, could not withstand the judicial conscience of this Court.
Accordingly, it is held that the Trial Court rightly disbelieved the
evidence of Ram Singh (P.W.4), Mahesh (P.W.3), Munesh @ Mukesh
Singh (P.W.5) as well as Angad Singh (P.W.2).
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
Whether the witnesses absconded immediately after the incident
and if so, then its effect?
52.(i) The Supreme Court in the case of Matru Vs. State of
U.P. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 75 has held as under :
19. The appellant's conduct in absconding was also
relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not
necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even
an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest
when wrongly suspected of a grave crime such is the
instinct of self-preservation. The act of absconding is no
doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along
with other evidence but its value would always depend on
the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are
disinclined to attach much importance to the act of
absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence
for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a
determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial
evidence which must admit of no other reasonable
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.......
(Underline supplied)
The Supreme Court in the case of Kundula Bala
Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 684 has held
as under :
22. Prosecution has also relied upon the circumstances of
the absconding of the appellants to prove its case.
23. A closer link with the conduct of the appellants both at
the time of the occurrence and immediately thereafter is
also the circumstance relating to their absconding. Md.
Baduruddin PW 15, the investigating officer, deposed that
he had taken up the investigation of the case and having
examined PWs 1-4 had caused search to be made for the
accused but they were not found in the village and despite
search, they could not be traced. Appellant 1 surrendered
before the court on November 10, 1981 while appellant 2
surrendered in the court on December 7, 1981. No
explanation, worth the name, much less a satisfactory
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
explanation has been furnished by the appellants about their
absence from the village till they surrendered in the court in
the face of such a gruesome 'tragedy'. Indeed, absconding
by itself may not be a positive circumstance consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused because it is not
unknown that even innocent persons may run away for fear
of being falsely involved in a criminal case and arrested by
the police, but coupled with the other circumstances which
we have discussed above, the absconding of the appellants
assumes importance and significance. The prosecution has
successfully established this circumstance also to connect
the appellants with the crime.
The Supreme Court in the case of Animireddy Venkata
Ramana v. Public Prosecutor, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 368 has
held as under :
16. We have taken note of the absence of the accused and
that they were absconding for a long time only to highlight
the conduct on their part and that had they been really
innocent and falsely implicated, their presence would have
been noticed in the village on the same night and in fact
they could have been witnesses to inquest, etc.
(ii) R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9) has specifically stated that at the
time of preparation of spot map Ex. P.13 and Ex. D.16, none of the
family member of the deceased was present. Further, the F.I.R., Ex.
P.3 was lodged by Angad Singh (P.W.2), in which the names of the
assailants were not mentioned and the F.I.R., Ex. P.3 was lodged
against unknown persons. The dead body of the deceased was also
received by Angad Singh (P.W.2) vide receipt Ex. P.6 and the
witnesses Mahesh Singh (P.W.3) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh
(P.W.5) were arrested at a later stage, Ram Singh (P.W.4) has also
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
admitted that he shifted to the house of his relatives and came back
only after coming to know that he is not wanted in the cross criminal
case. This indicates, that Mahesh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and
Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) absconded immediately after the
incident. Although abscondence of an accused, by itself cannot be
said to be an incriminating circumstance, but if his abscondence is
considered along with other circumstances, then it assumes
importance. Thus, it is clear that in fact Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram
Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) are not reliable
witnesses as they are not only interested witnesses, but they have also
suppressed the very genesis of the incident and have also not
explained the death of four persons, namely Keshav, Jaswant, Mamta
and Ramnath and have also not explained the injuries sustained by
Gomati and Manohar Singh. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly
disbelieved Angad Singh (P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh
(P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5).
What is effect of an attempt made by Public Prosecutor for giving
up Ramvir Singh (C.W.1)?
53.(i) From order dated 27-11-2003 passed by the Trial Court,
it is clear that earlier Shri Parmal Singh Gurjar was appearing as
Public Prosecutor. On the said date, charges were framed and Ramvir
Singh (C.W.1) was also cited as one of the prosecution witness,
although the name of Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) was not mentioned in the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
list of witnesses, given along with the charge sheet. Thereafter, on
23-9-2004, Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) appeared before the Trial Court.
On the said date, Shri B.L. Pachouri, Public Prosecutor, made a
prayer to give up the said witness, however, in the light of the
information given by Angad Singh (P.W.2) in F.I.R., Ex. P.3, that the
names of the assailants would also be disclosed by Ramvir Singh
(C.W.1), the Trial Court, examined Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) as Court
witness. Ramvir Singh (C.W.1), claimed that he was not present in
the village at the time of incident. This stand of Ramvir Singh
(C.W.1) was because of the fact that he was facing trial in cross case
for committing murder of four persons. It is not out of place to
mention here that he has also been convicted in cross S.T. No.
37/2001. Further, all the witnesses, have tried to project that Ramvir
Singh (C.W.1) was not present in the village at the time of incident.
Thus, it is clear that the Public Prosecutor, after realizing that
examination of Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) as a prosecution witness,
would not be in his interest, tried to give him up, but even then
Ramvir Singh (C.W.1) was examined by the Court as Court witness.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion,
that the prosecution tried to suppress the real incident.
Whether Ramant Singh/respondent had caused death of Brajesh
in exercise of right of private defence?
54.(i) This Court after minutely marshalling the evidence led
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
by the prosecution, has come to a conclusion, that Angad Singh
(P.W.2), Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @
Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) are not reliable witnesses. There is no other
evidence against Ramant Singh/Respondent to prove that either he
was armed with fire arm or had caused any injury to Brajesh. Further,
from the evidence of R.S. Ghuraiya (P.W.9), it is clear that Ramant
Singh/respondent was present in the village on 16-10-2000 and 17-
10-2000 and also assisted the police in investigating the offence,
clearly indicates that he has been falsely implicated. Thus, it is held
that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that
Ramant Singh/respondent caused death of Brajesh by causing gun
shot injury to him, therefore, it is held that as the firing of gun shot by
Ramant Singh/respondent could not be proved, therefore, there is no
question of exercise of right of private defence by Ramant
Singh/respondent.
Scope of intereference in an appeal against acquittal
55. The Supreme Court in the case of Gorle S. Naidu v. State of
A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 449 has held as under :
14. The respective stands need careful consideration. There
is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of the accused is
further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which
runs through the web of administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which
is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice
which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where
admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate court to reappreciate the evidence where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining
as to whether any of the accused really committed any
offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.) The
principle to be followed by the appellate court considering
the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere
only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for
doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable
and relevant and convincing materials have been
unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling
reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by
this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat,
Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, Raj Kishore Jha v.
State of Bihar, State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, State of
Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal.
56. Thus, it is clear that when two views are possible and once, the
Trial Court has taken view which is favourable to the accused, then
the Appellate Court must interfere only when the findings recorded
by the Trial Court are completely perverse and cannot be justified.
Mere possibility of second view cannot be a ground to reverse the
judgment of acquittal. Even otherwise, in the present case, this Court
has minutely appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution, and has
come to a conclusion that Angad Singh (P.W.2), are not reliable
witnesses. Mahesh (P.W.3) Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @
Mukesh Singh (P.W.5). Such a finding given by the Trial Court, is
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
proper and doesnot require any interference.
Conclusion
57. This Court after meticulous appreciation of evidence has come
to a conclusion, that Angad Singh (P.W.2) who had lodged the F.I.R.,
Ex. P.3 was not informed by any body about the name of the person,
who had shot the deceased Brajesh and therefore, the names of the
assailants were not mentioned in the F.I.R., Ex. P.3 and F.I.R. was
lodged against unknown persons. Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh
(P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) have not seen the
incident and are not reliable witnesses. The Trial Court has also
given a similar findings which doesnot require interference.
58. However, the Trial Court after holding that Mahesh Singh
(P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4) and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5)
are not reliable witnesses, has directly jumped to a conclusion that
the respondent/Ramant Singh, must have fired a gun shot in exercise
of his right of self defence. Such a finding recorded by the Trial
Court is not supported by any evidence. Once, the Trial Court had
come to a conclusion that Mahesh Singh (P.W.3), Ram Singh (P.W.4)
and Munesh @ Mukesh Singh (P.W.5) are not reliable witnesses, then
should have given honourable acquittal to Ramant Singh/respondent
and should not have acquitted by extending the benefit of right of
private defence.
59. Thus, while maintaining the order of acquittal, it is held that
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.A. No. 584 of 2008
State of M.P. Vs. Ramant Singh
the prosecution has failed to prove that Ramant Singh/respondent had
fired any gun shot. Accordingly, instead of extending the benefit of
right of private defence, Ramant Singh/respondent is acquitted
honorably for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Since, all the
accused persons were acquitted on the ground that they were neither
the members of unlawful assembly nor they were sharing common
object, therefore, the acquittal of Ramant Singh/respondent for
offence under Section 149, 302/149 of I.P.C. is also upheld.
60. With aforesaid modification, the order of acquittal dated 20-5-
2005, passed by 2nd Add. Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No.
229/2003, thereby acquitting Ramant Singh/Respondent for offence
under Sections 148,302 or in the alternative 302/149 of I.P.C. is
hereby maintained.
61. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He is
not required to appear before the Registry of this Court, in connection
with the present case. The record of the Trial Court be sent back
along with a copy of this judgment.
62. The appeal fails and is hereby Dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) (Rajeev Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
2021.05.03
12:51:03 +05'30'
