Holding

The three accused who only exhorted the shooters are not liable under IPC sections 302/307 read with 149 and their convictions are set aside, while the shooter’s conviction is upheld.

Summary

On 30 September 1996, five accused ambushed Ganeshram and his companions at a river crossing. Rammilan Lodhi and Babula Lodhi, armed with shotguns, fired, killing Ganeshram and injuring Annilal, while Prahlad, Dullam and Hukum, armed with lathis, only exhorted the shooters. The trial court convicted all under IPC sections 302, 307 and 149. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of the sole eyewitness (PW‑5), the forensic evidence, and the role of the three lathi‑wielding accused. It held that mere exhortation without actual participation does not satisfy the requirement of common intention under section 149, and therefore the benefit of doubt must be given to them. Consequently, the convictions of Prahlad, Dullam and Hukum were set aside, while Rammilan’s conviction was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether persons who only exhort others to fire can be held liable for murder under IPC section 149.
Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to sustain convictions under sections 302 and 307.
Whether the nature of the weapon and distance of firing affect the credibility of eyewitness evidence.
Whether the benefit of doubt applies when participation in the crime is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

murderculpable homicideIPC 149common intentioneyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtlathishotguncriminal appeal

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 282

'"
A. PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 146-147 of 2008)
JULY 19, 2011
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 307 rlw s.149 - Death
of one person and grievous injury to another - Five accused,
c viz. 'R', 'B', 'D', 'H' and 'P' - Allegation that 'B' fired a shot
causing severe injury on the head of PW-2 while 'R' fired a
shot at PW-2's relative which hit him on the abdominal area
killing him instantaneously - Trial Court convicted all the
accused under ss.302 and 307 rlw s.149- They filed appeal,
D during pendency of which, 'B' died - High Court dismissed
the appeal - On further appeal by P', 'D' 'H' and 'R', held:
Evidence of PW-5 was wholly reliable - The very spontaneity
of the FIR indicated that PW-5 was present at the murder site
- Likewise PW-6 who had arranged a tractor to take PW-2 to
E the police station clearly supported the view that PW-5 had
been present at the site and the two had carried the injured
to the hospital - PW-2 too supported the prosecution to the
extent that he admitted the presence of PW-5 at the time of
incident - The medical evidence also supported the eye-
F witnesses account - 'B' and 'R' were both armed with muzzle
loading 12 bore shotguns which could have caused the
injuries found on the person of the deceased as well as on
PW-2 - 'P', 'H' and 'D' were armed with lathis which had not
been used by them in any manner and the only a/legation
against them is that they had exhorted their co-accused to fire
G •
at the opposite party - The possibility that these three
accused were roped in, on account of animosity cannot be
ruled out and they must be given the benefit of doubt on that
score - Conviction of 'R' upheld whereas conviction of P' 'D'
and 'H' set aside. '
H
282
PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 283
;
_.; I

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 146-147 of 2008.

From the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2007 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 2886
& 3027 of 1998.
B
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1180 of 2008.

Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Dr. V.P. Appan, Vibha Datta Makhija
for the appearing parties. c
The following order of the Court was delivered

ORDER
This Order will dispose of all the above appeals as they D
arise from a common judgment.
The facts of the case are as under:
At 12.50 p.m. on the 30th September, 1996 as the
deceased Ganeshram accompanied by his relative Annilal E
(PW.2) and his son Chandan Singh (PW.5) were about to cross
the Narmada river on a boat, the five accused, Rammilan Lodhi
and Babula! Lodhi, both armed with shot guns, and Dullam,
Hukum and Prahlad armed with lathis came out of a bush. On
seeing Ganeshram and the others Prahlad, Hukum and Dullam F
exhorted Rammilan and Babulal to fire at Ganeshram. On this
exhortation Rammilan first fired a shot at Ganeshram which hit
him on the abdominal area killing him instantaneously and a

- /
'
'
shot fired by Babulal caused a severe injury on the head of
Annilal (PW.2), Chandan Singh (PW.5) who was behind them G
at some distance answering the call of nature witnessed the
entire incident. He rushed to the spot and first removed the
injured Annilal (PW.2)to the village and thereafter conveyed the
information about the incident to PW.6 Saheb Singh - his
brother. He also arranged for a tractor on which Annilal was H
l'.

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A carried to the hospital at Narsinghpur about 20 k.m. away and
the first information report was lodged in the police station
Narsinghpur at about 2.30 p.m. The Investigating Officer
thereafter reached the place of incident and made the
necessary inquiries and also sent the dead body for its post-
s mortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed
a large number of pellet injuries on the person of the deceased.
Rammilan was also arrested and on his disclosure statement
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act a muzzle loading shot
gun was seized along with pellets, gun powder and brass metal
c caps.
During the course of the trial Annilal(PW.2) did not support
the prosecution as he was equally related to the complainant
as well as the accused party. The prosecution accordingly
relied on the statement of PW.5-Chandan Singh and PW.6-
D Saheb Singh, as also the medical evidence. The Trial Court
however found that the evidence of PW.2 partly supported the
other evidence inasmuch that he had admitted his presence and
that of Chandan Singh at the time of the incident. The Trial Court
also noted that as the charge against the accused was under
E Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 of the IPC, all the accused
(notwithstanding the fact that they had not fired either at the
injured or the deceased) were liable to be roped in on a charge
of murder. The Trial Court accordingly convicted all the accused
under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 and
F sentenced them to undergo several terms of imprisonment; all
the sentences to run concurrently.
An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the High
Court and during the pendency of the appeal Babula!, one of
G the main accused is said to have died. The High Court vide its
judgment dated 11th September 2007 which has been
impugned before us dismissed the appeal on facts and findings
similar to ones recorded by the Trial Court. It is in this
background that the matter is before us and after grant of leave
H and has been heard by us today.
PRAHALAD SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 285
_,.,
Mr. Shi~ Sagar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the A
appellants-Prahlad, Dullam and Hukum in Crl.A. Nos. 146-147/
2008 at the very outset pointed out that Annilal (PW.2) having
disowned the prosecution story, the entire story hinged on the
statement of PW.5 and that as there was no evidence to
• suggest that the appellants had caused ar:iy injury to either of B
the victims although they were armed with lathis, clearly ruled
out their participation. He has also urged that the fact that the
parties appeared to be at logger heads on account of election
rivalries was said to be the reason for murder but as per the
statement of Saheb Singh (PW.6), the election dispute was c
between Gendalalthe father of the Rammilan and the deceased
but he had subsequently withdrawn his nomination form, and
as such the dispute no longer existed. He has also pointed out
¥--~
that it is by now well settled that in the case of a solitary witness
the evidence of that witness had to be wholly credible before
D
the conviction could be recorded thereunder.
Mr. V.P. Apan, the learned counsel representing Rammilan
the appellant in Crl.A.No. 1800/2008, has in addition referred
to the defence evidence of Sita Ram (DW.1) the Contractor at
the river crossing who testified that he had not seen any of the E
accused and only Annilal had been present and he had told him
that some incident had taken place.

•
, I
We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We F
must emphasis that the evidence of Chandan Singh (PW.5) is
wholly reliable. The First Information Report had been recorded
in the police station 20 k.m. away within 2 hours of the incident.
The very spontaneity of the FIR indicates that Chandan Singh
-_,, )
had been present at the murder site. Likewise Sahab Singh
G
(PW.6) who had arranged the tractor to take Annilal to the police
station clearly supports the view that Chandan Singh had been
present at the site and the two had carried the injured to the
hospital. Annilal, too supported the prosecution to the extent
that he admitted the presence of PW.5 at the time of incident.
H

-
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
"-

A The medical evidence also supports the eyewitnesses account.
It is the admitted case that Babulal and Rammilan were both
armed with muzzle loading 12 bore shotguns which could have
caused the injuries found on the person of the deceased as well
as on Annilal (PW.2). Some arguments had been occasioned
B before the courts below with regard to the distance from which
shots had been fired. The Courts have found that the shots had
been fired from a short distance. We must however emphasis
that where the weapon and ammunition used is of uncertain
make and quality the normal pellet pattern based on standard
weapons and ammunition, cannot be applied with accuracy.
c The distance from which the shots have been fired cannot
therefore have the effect of dislodging a credible eyewitness
account in such a case.
The appellants Prahlad, Hukum Singh and Dullam were
D armed with lathis which had not been used by them in any
manner and the only allegation against them is that they had
exhorted their co-accused to fire at the opposite party. We are
therefore of the opinion that the possibility that these three
accused have been roped in on acc;ount of animosity cannot
E be ruled out and we must give them the benefit of doubt on that
score.
The appeal of Rammilan i.e. Crl. A. No. 1180/2008 is
dismissed whereas Crl. Appeal Nos. 146-147/2008 are
F allowed. The accused - appellants Prahlad, Dullam and Hukum
are said to be in custody. They shall be released forthwith if
not required in connection with any other case.
Fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at Rs.7,000/-.
.._
G B.B.B. Appeals disposed of. '
.
,
•.