Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Madhya Pradesh Attempted Murder Case and Provides Final Judgment on Appeal

The case of Suresh Singh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh revolves around a dispute where the appellants were convicted under Sections 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the attempted murder of Keshav Singh and others during an altercation that took place on December 6, 1992. The Supreme Court, after extensive deliberation, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the conviction, reducing the sentence for attempted murder from seven years to five years.

Background of the Case

The incident arose from a disagreement over the use of a local well between the appellants and the complainant, Keshav Singh. On December 6, 1992, at approximately 6:00 PM, the appellants, armed with deadly weapons, engaged in an altercation with the complainant and his companions, escalating into a violent confrontation. The dispute resulted in Keshav Singh and several others being severely injured, while one of the involved parties, Rambaran, died during the altercation. Keshav Singh, who was critically injured, was hospitalized and managed to survive the attack.

According to the prosecution’s version, the appellants were the aggressors and were part of a group that attacked the complainant and others with axes, lathis, and bhallas. The police filed two FIRs, one from the complainant’s side and another from the appellants’ side. The appellants were subsequently charged with attempted murder, among other offenses, and the trial court convicted them under Sections 307 and 149 IPC.

The appellants challenged their conviction in the High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence but reduced the sentence for attempted murder from seven years to five years.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued that:

• The injuries inflicted on the victims did not justify a charge of attempted murder.
• They acted in self-defense against the complainant and his group, who allegedly initiated the violence.
• The evidence presented by the prosecution was inconsistent and should not be relied upon.
• There was a delay in lodging the FIR, and this delay cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s version of events.

Arguments by the Respondents

The prosecution argued that:

• The appellants were the primary aggressors, and their attack was premeditated and targeted towards the complainant and his group.
• The injuries caused to the victims were severe, and the appellants had used deadly weapons during the assault.
• The prosecution’s witnesses, including the injured victims, were credible, and their testimonies corroborated the sequence of events.
• There was no valid reason for the appellants to claim self-defense, as there was no evidence to support such a claim.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court closely examined the case, considering the submissions from both sides, as well as the factual matrix and evidence. The Court’s key observations included:

• Failure to Prove Self-Defense: The Court found that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim of self-defense. The Court held:
• “In order to claim self-defense, there must be clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat. The appellants have failed to provide such evidence. The injuries inflicted were disproportionate and targeted at the vital parts of the body, which suggests an intent to kill.”
• Seriousness of the Attack: The Court emphasized the severity of the attack and the use of deadly weapons, stating:
• “The appellants’ use of axes and lathis indicates their intention to cause grievous harm. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his companions were significant and life-threatening.”
• Witness Testimonies and Consistency: The Court found that the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, including those of the injured victims, were consistent and corroborated the sequence of events. The Court observed:
• “The testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were reliable, and the injuries sustained by the victims matched their statements. The delay in filing the FIR did not cast any significant doubt on the credibility of the witnesses.”
• Credibility of the FIR and Delay: While there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the Court held that the delay did not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Court remarked:
• “The delay in lodging the FIR is understandable given the serious nature of the injuries and the medical treatment the victims had to undergo. The delay does not, in this case, affect the veracity of the witnesses’ statements.”

Final Judgment