Holding

The appellant Magan is guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

On 27 November 1990, the appellant Magan and four others attacked Indar Singh in Theka Kund village, with Magan shooting an arrow that pierced Indar's chest, leading to his death; Indar's brother Hari Singh was also injured. The trial court convicted all five accused under Sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC, a conviction later partially set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which upheld only Magan's conviction for murder (Section 302) and Chamru's for voluntarily causing hurt. The appellant challenged the reliance on prosecution witnesses, arguing that pending civil litigations and the four‑year delay in taking statements rendered their testimony unreliable, and also raised a self‑defence plea for the first time. The Supreme Court examined the motive disclosed in the FIR and witness statements, held that the presence of witnesses at the scene was credible despite the delay, and found no evidence that any accused was injured or that a genuine threat justified private defence. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The reliability of prosecution witnesses' testimony given the four‑year delay and pending civil disputes.
Whether a plea of self‑defence was properly raised and applicable to the appellant.
The adequacy of evidence to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323

Subjects

murderhomicideself-defenceunlawful assemblymotivewitness testimonyevidence delayIPC Section 302Indian Evidence Act

Judgment

MAGAN A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

APRIL 10, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 323:

Murder-Accused persons attacked deceased and another-'-Accused
allegedly shot an arrow which pierced the chest of deceased-Deceased C
succumbed to injuries-Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of
committing murder of the deceased and causing voluntary hurt to his brother
and sentenced them accordingly-High Court setting aside conviction against
all the accused persons except appellant and another, affirmed conviction
and sentence against the accused-appellant-On appeal, Held: Motive of D
committing the crime has categorically been disclosed not only in FIR but
also in the deposition of prosecution witnesses-Presence of prosecution
witnesses at the place of occurrence not doubtful-Since deposition of
witnesses made after lapse offour years from the incident, some variation in
their statement cannot be ruled out-A plea of right to selfdefence raised for
the first time and it was not specifically raised before the trial Court-No E
reasons/explanations furnished as to the circumstances-None of the accused
persons suffered injuries so as to justify accused exercising their right to
private defence-Under the circumstances, both the Courts below rightly
found accused guilty of offence punishable u/s. 302 !PC-Evidence Act,
1872-Evidence of witnesses-Evidentiary value. F
s On the fateful day, when the deceased along with his brother PW-2 and
other persons were in their respective hutments, the accused persons
including appellant came there and started shouting, on hearing of which
deceased, his brother and others came out of their houses. Appellant was
carrying a bow and arrows and other accused persons were having stones in G
their hands. Accused-appellant bore a grudge against the deceased since he
made a complaint against the appellant in regard to cutting ofMahua tree
before the Forest Rangers. Appellant shot an arrow which pierced the left
,A side of the chest of the deceased. PW-2 and other witnesses tried to intervene,

1047 H
;

+.
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A whereupon other accused persons started pelting stones .towards them. On
receipt of injuries, the deceased tried to run away·from the scene of
occurrence, however, after going a few steps he fell down. He was brought to
the hut and after some time he succumbed to the injuries. First Information
Report was lodged by PW-2, and Police, after completing the investigation,
submitted the charge-sheet During trial, seven witnesses were examined on
B behalf of the prosecution. The Trial Court upon considering the materials
brought on record found all the accused persons guilty of committing the
offences of murder of the deceased and causing voluntary hurt to PW-2, and
accordingly convicted them for committing offences punishable u/ss. 148, 302/
149, 323/149 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. An appeal was preferred
C thereagainst by all the accused persons. The High Court opined that the
appellants therein were not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections,
148, 302/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. High Court, while setting aside the
conviction against all the convicts except the appellant, affirmed the conviction
and sentence against the accused-appellant only. Hence the present appeal.

D Accused-appellant contended that the Trial Court and consequently the
High Court failed to notice the fact that the litigations were pending between
the parties and, thus, no reliance should have been,placed upon the evidences
of the prosecution witnesses and in particular PW-2; and that although PW-
2 made a statement before the Court that two other eye-witnesses, they were
E not named in the First Information Report

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. 1. The motive on the part of Appellant in committing the crime
has categorically been disclosed not only in the First Information Report, but
F also in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and in particular PWs-2
and 6. If the place where the occurrence took place is not in question, there
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the residents of the neighbouring huts
would either see the occurrence or come out immediately thereafter. As the
occurrence took place at about 6.00 p.m., presence of the prosecution witnesses
cannot be doubted. It may be that a litigation in regard to theft of a buffalo was
G pending against PW 3, PW4 and PW.6, .but that by itself cannot be a ground
for false implication of the appellant PW-2 is furthermore an injured witness
(Para 16] (105:3-G-H; 1054-A]

1.2. A suggestion had been given by the accused that PW-2 being armed
with a bow and arrows ran after the accused-appellant to kill him, if that be
H
MAGAN v. ST ATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1049
so, it was expected that the First Information Report to that effect should have A
been lodged. A question was asked to him as to whether he had gone to tbe
deceased after he fell down to ask as to who had hurt him; but then he clarified
that he had seen the deceased being shot with an arrow. Yet again a suggestion
was put to him that the accused persons came barging in their house; if that
be so, they must be held to have accepted the prosecution case in part. B
[Para 17) [1054-B]

1.3. PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 also fully supported the prosecution
""i case. PW-6 in his evidence might have stated that he alone went to the deceased
and carried him to the hut, but the same by itself cannot be considered to
nullify the effect the statements of other witnesses. The High Court has rightly
commented that the depositions of the witnesses having taken place after four
c

.. years from the date of incident, some variation in their statements cannot be
ruled out [Para 18] [1054-C-D]

2. A plea of right of self-defence had not been specifically raised. A faint
attempt was, however, made in that behalf before the Trial Court alleging that D
during a function which took place at the house of one 'R', there had been a
fight between the dC\!eased and the appellant The appellant was brought out
~ of the house where the function was being held. But PW-6 categorically stated
that there had been no such function. Right of private defence had not been
raised by any other accused and, thus, in what circumstances, appellant had
shot an arrow had also not been explained. If the deceased had shot an arrow E
at the appellant, he would have suffered injuries. None of the accused persons
had suffered any injury so as to give rise to exercise of their right of private
defence. The Trial Court as also the High Court considered all aspects of the
matter and rightly found appellant guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 3021.P.C. [Para 19] [1054-E-G] F
j• CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 99 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2002 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in CRLA No. 1364 of 1998.

Santosh Singh for the Appellant.
G

Vibha Datta Makhija and Amit Mishra for the Respondent.·

A_ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
+-
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A S.B. ,SINHA, J. I. Appellant herein is before us questioning the y.
correctness or otherwise of a judgment and order dated 18.01.2002 passed by ..
a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, Indore,
in Criminal Appeal No. 1364 of 1998 whereby and whereunder he was held to
be guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short, 'l.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
B for life and a fine ofRs.500/-, in default whereof he had been directed to suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Appellant along with four other persons, nll!Jlely, Chamru. Dhansingh,
Lalu and Jatnia were charged for commission of offences punishable under
C Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149
I.P.C. The occurrence took place at about 6.00 p.m. on 27.11.1990 at village
Theka Kund, Haveli Phalia.

3. Deceased Indar Singh along with his brother Hari Singh (PW-2) and
other persons were in their respective hutments. The accused persons came
D there and started shouting, on hearing of which Hari Singh (PW-2), deceased
Indar Singh and Ansingh, Chandar Singh, Sayaribai and Sakru came out of
their houses. Appellant was carrying a bow and arrows and other accused
persons were having stones in their hands. Appellant wanted to know from
the deceased as to why a complaint had been made by him in regard to
cutting ofMahua tree before the Ranger. They started abusing them. Appellant
E shot an arrow which pierced the left side of the chest of the deceased. PW-
2 and other witnesses tried to intervene, whereupon other accused persons
started pelting stones. Chamru allegedly threw a stone which hit the shoulder
and right parietal region of Hari Singh (PW-2). On receipt of injuries, the
deceased Indar Singh tried to run away from the scene of occurrence. He took
p out the arrow and threw away the same. He, however, after going a few steps
fell down. He was brought to the hut and after some time he succumbed to -\
l.
his injuries. A First Information Report was lodged by PW-2 before the Police
Station which was situated at a distance of 14 k.m. from the place of occurrence.
Before the learned Trial Judge, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of
the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge upon considering the materials
G brought on record found all the accused persons guilty of commission of
murder of Indar Singh and causing voluntary hurt to PW-2, stating :

"Thus after the discussion of entire evidence I have come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that on
27 .10.90 the accused persons formed unlawful assembly for the common
H
MAGAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 1051
object of causing murder. of Indar Singh at Village Thekakund and in A
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, the accused
persons anned with deadly weapons arrow and bow and stone, caused
riots and being the member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of
common object of that assembly, shot an arrow on Indar Singh with
intention and knowingly caused death by committing murder of Indar
Singh and being the member of that unlawful assembly in prosecution
B
of common object of that assembly voluntarily caused hurt to Hari by
pelting stones.
f..,
-t Consequently I find the accused persons guilty for the offences
under sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 I.P.C. Judgment is adjourned for
hearing on the point of sentence."
c
4. In regard to the quantum of punishment, it was stated as under :

"Accused persons heard on the point of sentence. It is argued on
behalf of the accused persons that this is their first offence, hence
they ·be dealt with liberally on the point of sentence. Looking to the D
nature of offences the accused persons are sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 2-2 years each for the offence u/s 148 IPC.
For the offence u/s 302/149 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment each
and fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred) and in default of payment of

- fine, they will suffer further simple imprisonment for six months and E
for the offence punishable under section 323/149 of l.P.C., they are
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. All the sentences of the
accused persons to run concurrently. Detention period of the accused
persons be set off from the sentence."

5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by all the accused persons. The F
...
I
High Court by reason of the impugned judgment while accepting the evidence
..J of the prosecution opined that the appellants therein were not guilty· of the
offences punishable under Sections, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 l.P.C. But while
setting aside the conviction under the said provisions Appellant herein was
found guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 3021.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; and accused Chamru was G
found guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 323 l.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for the period already undergone
by him with a fine of Rs.500/-.
,........,

6. Appellant is, thus, before us.
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A 7. Mrs. Santosh Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Appellant, inter alia, would submit that the learned Trial Judge and consequently
the High Court failed to notice the fact that the litigations were pending
between the parties and, thus, no reliance should have been placed upon the
evidences of the prosecution witnesses and in particular the PW-2.

B 8. The learned counsel would contend that even from a perusal of the
evidence of PW-2, it would appear that although he claimed himself to be an
eye-witness, but curiously stated that when Indar Singh fell on the ground,
he went to him and asked as who had hurt him, which was absolutely
unnecessary.
c 9. It was submitted that although PW-2 made a statement before the
.'

Court that Lakshman s/o Ram Chander and Bhupender s/o Karan Singh were
eye-witnesses, they were not named in the First Information Report. Our
attention has also been drawn to the evidence of Sakru (PW-6) to point out
that he was also not an eye-witness as he came at a later stage.
D
10. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, however, supported the impugned judgment.

l l. Homicidal nature of death of the deceased Indar Singh is not in
dispute. He suffered the following ante-mortem injuries :
E "External Injuries : One incised perforating wound present over 3rd rib
cut off at costo-condrial junction

Size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 10.0 cm.
.r-
Bone Injury caused by hard sharp perforating object (as.an arrow)"
F
12. Hari Singh (PW-2) also suffered the following injuries :
~
... I
"I. Conturium on Right shoulder On Back size 6 ems. X 6 ems
II. Lacerated wound present on Right frontal region Size 2.0 ems. X ,._
G
1.0 cm x 0.5 cm. E
2. Abrasion on left leg in position laterally

Size 2.0 ems. X 1.0 cm"

13. The cause of death of Indar Singh, as disclosed in the Post Mortem :r- !'
Report, is as under : 'i
H
MAGANv. STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH[S.B. SINHA,J.) 1053
"Deceased died of hemorrhage shock due to perforating wound. A
Homicidal in nature; Died within 24 hours."

14. Dr. M.S. Mangloi (PW-I), who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased, in his deposition stated :

"The post-mortem was conducted by me on the same day at I .30 B
pm. The deceased was ofnormal built, eyes were closed, pupil dilated,
mouth closed and face was pale. Chest and lower extremities were
stained with dried blood. Rigor mortis present on both extremities. PM
stains present on back. On the examination of the body, I found
following injuries on the body :
c
One incised perforation wound present over 3rd rib

At Costo-condrialjunction Size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 10.0 cm."

It appears that the said injuries were caused by a hard, sharp D
perforating object as an arrow. Injuries were Ante-mortem in nature,
caused within 24 hours of my examination. The injuries are sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

In my opinion, deceased dies due to hemorrhage shock. Death is
homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Exhibit P-2, on which E
my signatures are from A to A."

15. The First Infonnation Report is somewhat a detailed one. It speaks
of the mode and manner in which the incident took place. Events taking place
immediately after the occurrence had also been stated. Hari Singh (PW-2) in
his deposition supported the prosecution case in its entirety. F
16. The motive on the part of Appellant in committing the said crime has
categorically been disclosed not only in the First Information Report, but also
in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and in particular PWs-2 and
6. If the place where the occurrence took place is not in question, there cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that the residents of the neighbouring huts would G
either see the occurrence or come out immediately thereafter. As the occurrence
took place at about 6.00 p.m., presence of the prosecution witnesses cannot
. be doubted. It may be that a litigation in regard to theft of a buffalo was
pending against Sakru, Chander Singh and Magan (PW-4), but that by itself
cannot be a ground for false implication of the appellant. PW-2 is furthennore H
'
iC i ...._

1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A an injured witness.
·:
17. A suggestion had been given by the accused that PW-2 being
armed with a bow and arrows ran after the accused Magan to kill him, if that
be so, it was expected that the First Information Report to that effect should
have been lodged. A question was asked to him as to whether he had gone
B to Indar Singh after he fell down to ask as to who had hurt him; but then he
clarified that he had seen Indar Singh being shot with an arrow. Yet again a
suggestion was put to him that the accused persons came barging in their
house; if that be so, they must be held to have accepted the prosecution case ..
in part. r
c 18. Chander Singh (PW-3), Magan (PW-4), An Singh (PW-5) and Sakru
(PW-6) also fully supported the prosecution case. PW-6 in his evidence might
have stated that he alone went to Indar Singh and carried him to the hut, but
the same by itself cannot be considered, in our opinion, to nullify the effect
of statements of other witnesses. The High Court, in our opinion, has rightly
D commented that the depositions of the witnesses having taken place after
four years from the date of incident, some variation in their statements cannot
be ruled out.
l::
19. Participation of Appellant and that ofChamru, therefore, cannot be
doubted. A plea of right of self-defence had not been specifically raised. A
E faint attempt was, however, made in that behalf before the learned Trial Judge
alleging that during a function which took place at one Ram 'Singh's house, .
there had been a fight between Hari Singh, Indar Singh and Magan. Magan
was brought out of the house where the function was being held by· Hari
Singh and Indar Singh. But Sakru (PW-6) categorically stated that there had
been no such function. Right of private defence had not been raised by any
F
other accused and, thus, in what circumstances, Appellant had shot an arrow
had also not been explained. If the deceased· had shot an arrow at the ....
~
appellant, he would have suffered injuries: None of the accused persons had
suffered any injury so as to give rise to exercise of their right of private
defence. The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court, in our opinion, , ·
G considered all aspects of th~ matter and rightly f~und Appellant g~ilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302 1.P.C.

20. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this
appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. j
·"'--
H S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.