RAMVILASversusSTATE OF M.P.

                    [2015] 9 S.C.R. 205


                        RAMVILAS                             A
                             v.
                      STATE OF M.P.
         (Criminal Appeal Nos.1.786-1787 of 2009)
                                                             B
                    AUGUST 18, 2015
        [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s. 149, 324, 323 rlw s. 149
and 148 - Murder - Victim-deceased attacked by the c
appellants and other accused by lathis, pistol and spears -
When his family members tried to save !Jim, they also
received injuries - Deceased succumbed to injuries -
Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: All the eye
witnesses consistently spoke about the occurrence and the D
overt acts of the accused including the appellant - Courts
below recorded the concurrent findings of fact observing that
the testimony of eye witnesses was credible and trustworthy
- Prosecution witnesses being injured, their presence at the
place of incident cannot be doubted- Conviction of appellant E ·
was based on evidence of injured witnesses which was amply
corroborated by the evidence of eye-witnesses .and medical
evidence - Interference with order of conviction not called
for.
                                                                F
     Evidence: Injured witness - Testimony of, evidentiary
value- Held: Evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to great
weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required
to discard such evidence.
                                                                G
     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. In the incident, PW-3 and PW-5, sister of
the deceased sustained injuries. PW-3 and PW-5 being
injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place H
                          205
206         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A of occurrence cannot be doubted. Evidence of the
  injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very
  cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard
  the evidence of the injured witnesses. There is no
  ground to disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses
B PW-3 and PW-5. [Para 6] [209-E-F]

        2. As observed by the High Court all the eye
   witnesses have spoken in one voice so far as carrying
   of 'katta' by appellant and, therefore, his presence at the
c scene of occurrence cannot be doubted merely because
   no 'katta' was recovered from him. It came out in the
   evidence that the appellant had exhorted the other
   accused in attacking the deceased and also actually
   participated in the attack. As pointed out by the courts
D below that the appellant nowhere pleaded in his
   examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was
  .neither present at the scene of occurrence nor involved
   in the incident. The conviction of the appellant is based
   on the evidence of injured witnesses which is amply
E corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and
   medical evidence. Conviction of the appellant is based
   on proper appreciation of evidence and courts below
   have recorded concurrent findings and the same is not
   liable to be interfered with in exercise of power under
F
   Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 7, 8] [209- ·
   H; 210-A-D]

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
      Appeal Nos. 1786-1787 of2009
G
           From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2007 of the
      High Court of Madhya Pradesh at _Jabalpur in Criminal
      Application Nos. 377 and 481of1995                            "'
                                WITH
H Crl. A No. 1788-1789 of 2009
                   RAMVILAS v. STATE OF M.P.                      207


       ·Ajay Veer Singh, R.K. Verma, Rakesh KumarKhare,Atul        A
    Agrawal, Naresh Kumar, Mohd. lrshad HaniffortheAppellant.

         Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh for the Respondent.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   B
         R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. In these appeals, the appellants
    challenge the correctness of the judgment passed by the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeals
    No.377 of 1995 and 481 of 1995 whereby the Hig~ Court
    confirmed the conviction and sentence awprded to the C
    appellants by the trial court under Sections 302 read with
    Section 149 IPC, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and
    148 IPC.

           2.      Case of the prosecution is that on 23:07.1991 D
    at about 7.00 O'clock in the morning at village Hathighat,
    deceased-Bansilal had gone towards the riverside to attend
    nature's call. One Harisingh Kachhi (PW-7), Jagdish (PW-
    13) and Noor Khan (PW-9) came to the house of Narmada
    Prasad (PW-3) and informed him that the accused-appellants E
    were assaulting his brother-Bansilal. Narmada Prasad (PW-
    3) immediately rushed to the spot alongwith them and near
    'otla' of Hardul Baba, he noticed that all the appellants armed
    with lethal weapons had surrounded his brother-Bansilal.
                                                                    F
    Appellants Chhotelal, Kailash and Suresh were armed with
    spears, appellant-Ramvilas was armed with pistol, whereas
    appellants Ramsingh and Gorelal were carrying lathis with
    them. When Bansilal tried to escape, appellant-Ramvilas fired
    a shot from his pistol and when Bansilal fell down, appellants G
    Chhotelal and Kailash attacked him with spear on his scalp
    and forehead. When Narmada Prasad (PW-3) tried to
.   intervene, appellant-Kailash attacked Narmada Prasad with
    spear and caused injury below his right eye. Then Uma Bai
    (PW-5) sister of the deceased and Sona Bai-mother of the H
208       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A   <;leceased tried to save Bansilal, the appellants Kailash and
    Ram Singh also attacked them. Appellant-Ramvilas intimidated
    and threatened the persons present there and said that if
  . anybody would intervene, he would be shot dead. The
 · appellants gave repeated blows to Bansilal by spear and lathis
B and then fled away. Injured Bansilal was immediately taken to
    the hospital where he was declared dead. On the complaint
    lodged by Narmada Prasad (PW-3), brother of the deceased;
    FIR was registered in Criminal Case No.131of1991 under
    Sections.147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 IPC at PS Nasirullahganj.
C After due investigation, the appellants were prosecuted under
    Sections 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149, 324, 324 read
    with Section 149, 323 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC.

         3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court
D  convicted the appellant-Ramvilas and other accused under
   Sections 302 read with Section 149, 324, 323 read with
   Section 149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
 · imprisonment and further imposed sentence of imprisonment
   for other offences. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the
E conviction of the appellants and also the sentence of
   imprisonment imposed on each of them. These appeals assail
   the correctness of the impugned judgment. On application filed
   onbehalf of the appellants, the appeal was dismissed as
F withdrawn qua the appellants Suresh (A 1), Kailash (A2) and
   Ram Singh (A4) by the Chamber Judge Order dated
   18.02.2013.

        4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Ajay Veer Singh,
  the learned counsel for the third appellant-Ramvilas and also
G the learned counsel appearing for the State. We have carefully
  considered the rival contentions and perused the evidence on
  record and also the impugned judgment.                            .
                          I
        5.Gonviction of the appellant-Ramvilas and other accused
H
        RAMVILAS v. STATE OF M.P. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]                 209


    is based mainly on the evidence adduced by six eye witnesses, A
    namely, Narmada Prasad (PW3), Rekha Bai(PW-4), Uma Bai
    (PW-5), Hari Singh (PW-7), Noor Khan (PW-9) and Jagdish
    (PW-13) coupled with other corroborative evidence. All the
    eye witnesses have consistently spoken about the occurrence
    and the overt acts of the accused including the appellant- B
    Ramvilas. Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings
    of fact observing that the testimony of eye witnesses is credible
    and trustworthy. Deceased~Bansilal had sustained as many
    as twenty six injuries. Evidence of eye witnesses is amply
    corroborated by medical evidence. By perusal of the records, C
    no cogent reasons are forthcoming to disbelieve the testimony
    of the eye witnesses and we find no reason to interfere with
    the concurrent findings recorded by the courts accepting the
    evidence of eye witnesses as trustworthy.
                                                                     D
          6. In the incident, Narmada Prasad (PW-3) and Uma Bai
    (PW-5) sister of the deceased sustained injuries and Ex.P-9
    and Ex. P-10 are the MLC Reports of Narmada Prasad (PW-
    3) and Uma Bai (PW-5) respectively issued by Dr. S.K. Dhoble
    (PW-10). Narmada Prasad (PW-3) and Uma Bai (PW-5) being          E
    injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of
    occurrence cannot be doubted. Evidence of the injured
    witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and
    convincing grounds are required to discard the evidence of       F
    the injured witnesses. We do not find any ground to disbelieve
    the evidence of injured witnesses Narmada Prasad (PW-3)
    and Uma B~i (PW-5).

         7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Veer Singh
    contended that the presence of appellant-Ramvilas at the G
    scene of occurrence was doubtful as no 'katta' was seized
    from him nor any gun shot injury.was found on the person of ·
    deceased-Bansilal. As observed by the High Court all the eye
    witnesses have spoken in one voice so far as carrying of 'katta' H

-
210          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A  by appellant-Ramvilas and therefore his presence at the scene
   of occurrence cannot be doubted merely because no 'katta'
   was recovered from him. It has come out in the evidence that
   the appellant-Ramvilas had exhorted the other accused in
   attacking the deceased and also actually participated in the
 B attack. As pointed out by the courts below that the appellant-
   Ramvilas nowhere pleaded in his examination under Section
   313 Cr.P.C. that he was neither present at the scene of
   occurrence nor involved in the incident.

C       8. The conviction of the appellant-Ramvilas is based on
  the evidence of injured witnesses which is amply corroborated
  by the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence.
  Conviction of the appellant is based on proper appreciation
  of evidence and courts below have recorded concurrent
D findings and the same is not liable to be interfered with in
  exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

            9. These appeals are dismissed.

E     Devika Gujral                               Appeals dismissed.




                                                                       •


                                                                       -