Appeals Allowed and Convictions Set Aside in Murder Case

This case revolves around the murder of Babusingh, which took place on the night intervening 13/14th September 1992 near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court convicted seven individuals, including the appellants—Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Gajrajsingh—under Sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, after detailed examination, the Supreme Court found sufficient doubts regarding the involvement of the three appellants in the crime and acquitted them of the charges.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to the night when Babusingh, along with two pillion riders, was returning to his village Kalma from Dewas on a motorcycle. Upon nearing the village, the group was attacked by a large number of people armed with weapons such as dharias (sharp-edged weapons) and swords. The attackers surrounded Babusingh and began assaulting him, leading to his death. The prosecution argued that the appellants were among the attackers, while the defense disputed their presence at the crime scene.

The police investigation led to the arrest of 15 individuals, who were all charged with the murder. After a trial, the court convicted seven of the accused, including Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh, and Gajrajsingh, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants then filed appeals, questioning the validity of the charges against them and the evidence presented in the trial.

Key Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• The appellants contended that there was no direct evidence linking them to the crime. In particular, the “Dehati Nalishi,” a document recorded soon after the incident, did not mention their names as assailants.
• The appellants argued that the key witnesses, including Gattu (PW-8), did not identify them or provide credible testimony linking them to the attack.
• The defense also pointed out discrepancies in the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, such as Mansingh (PW-5) and Motisingh (PW-1), which raised doubts about the accuracy of their statements.

Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments

• The prosecution argued that the appellants were identified as part of the group that attacked Babusingh, and they were correctly convicted based on the evidence provided by witnesses.
• The prosecution relied on the statements of witnesses like Mansingh and Motisingh, who identified the appellants as attackers during the assault on Babusingh.
• The “Dehati Nalishi” was recorded promptly after the murder, and although the appellants’ names were missing, the overall evidence indicated their involvement.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully examined the facts and evidence presented during the trial. A key point of contention was the absence of the appellants’ names in the initial report, the “Dehati Nalishi,” which was recorded at the instance of Motisingh, the father of the deceased. This report mentioned some of the attackers but not the appellants. Additionally, Gattu, who was present during the attack, failed to identify the assailants in his testimony and did not corroborate the prosecution’s claim that Babusingh had shouted the names of the attackers.

The Court also scrutinized the testimony of Mansingh (PW-5), who claimed to have witnessed the attack but did not mention the appellants in his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The discrepancy between his testimony in court and his earlier statement raised doubts about the reliability of his identification of the appellants.

The Court also noted that while Mansingh and the appellants belonged to the same area, and he could identify some of the assailants, he failed to mention the appellants, even though they were allegedly present at the scene. This inconsistency in Mansingh’s statements and the failure of other key witnesses to identify the appellants led to the conclusion that the evidence against them was insufficient.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after a thorough review of the evidence and testimonies, found that there was a grave doubt regarding the appellants’ presence at the scene of the crime. Given the discrepancies in witness statements and the lack of direct evidence against the appellants, the Court concluded that they should be acquitted.

In light of these findings, the Court allowed the appeals of Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, and Gajrajsingh. The trial court’s judgment convicting them was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. The Court also directed that the appellants be released from custody unless required in any other case.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of reliable and consistent witness testimony in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving serious charges such as murder. The absence of key details, contradictions in witness statements, and the lack of direct evidence were central to the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellants. The judgment emphasizes the principle that when there is reasonable doubt about a defendant’s involvement in a crime, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision highlights the judicial standard that must be met to secure a conviction, particularly in cases involving life imprisonment and severe criminal charges.

Petitioner Name: Peer Singh.
Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 09-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Peer Singh vs The State of Madhya Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category