The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of three accused persons in a case of murder and noted that all the ocular witnesses were injured, which made their testimony credible and believable.

The Apex Court was considering the Appeals confirming the order of conviction and imposition of life sentence upon the accused persons.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “It is trite that, merely because witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to the interested, especially in a case where there is ocular testimony”.

“It also has to be kept in mind that all the ocular witnesses were injured which makes their testimony credible and believable”, it further added.

Advocate Yogesh Tiwari represented the Appellants while AAG D.S. Parmar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The accused, on the instigation of the person who possessed the disputed land where the injured carried out the worship of a deity, reached the house of the deceased with weapons. This resulted in a scuffle ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to the three grandchildren. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR, but only six, against whom the charge was laid by the Trial Court, of which one died during the proceedings.

The appellants herein were charged with offences under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Two were charged under Sections 324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34, who were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court, leading to the conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed. Aggrieved thereby, the accused appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted that the ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of the deceased which by itself would not result in eschewing their testimony. The Bench also noticed that the prosecution unequivocally proved that the altercation leading to the scuffle occurred in the house of the deceased, wherein the accused had come with deadly weapons, clearly to harm the inmates of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed property to offer prayers.

The fact that the dispute existed with reference to the land stood proved by the testimony of a neighbour who had gone to the house of the deceased, hearing the commotion. He testified in cross-examination that there was animosity between the accused and the victims regarding the ownership of the place of worship. Moreover, the injury sustained by the deceased, as spoken of by the eyewitnesses, was further corroborated by the neighbour who had accompanied the injured victims to the hospital. In cross-examination, he specifically stated that he heard the sound of weeping of women from the neighbouring house and witnessed the scuffle on reaching there. The Bench found that nothing suspicious, to doubt the veracity of the ocular witnesses, had come out in their depositions either in the chief examination or cross.

Highlighting that mthe otive of enmity is a doubled edged weapon, the Bench mentioned, “Animosity alleged can even lead to an accusation of false allegation on the part of the complainant to deliberately implicate the accused. This makes it imminent that we examine the testimony of witnesses with a hawk’s eye to understand whether it is truthful or the witnesses are to be disbelieved. The relationship of the ocular witnesses with the deceased is of no consequence, as the possibility of outsiders being available inside the house of the injured is very remote.”

The Bench noted that the fact that the accused came to the house of the deceased with the intention of questioning them regarding the visit made to the deity installed in the disputed property had been unequivocally proved by the oral testimony of witnesses. The same stood established, and this pointed to the premeditation and the intention to cause injuries which were likely to cause death.

“The facts regarding the fight and the overt acts, as disclosed from the evidence does not commend us to find an offence covered under Part II of Section 304 nor falls under any of the Exceptions to Section 300; resulting in a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, it said.

The fatal injury caused on the deceased was by a blow to the head, a vital part of the body, with the reverse side of an axe. The intention thus was clear, from the deadly nature of the weapons carried by the accused, who were the aggressors, who trespassed into the house of the victims and wielded such weapons in a manner causing grievous injuries to the victims, one of whom died. The severity of the injury, caused by a blow to the head, definitely resulted in the death, though after a few days, as deposed by the Doctor.

Thus, in view of such facts and circumstances, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Maukam Singh & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 435)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Yogesh Tiwari, AOR Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR

Respondent: AAG D.S. Parmar, Advocate Abhimanyu Singh Ga, AOR Yashraj Singh Bundela, Advocates Chanakya Baruah, Saloni, Rohan Singla

Click here to read/download Judgment










Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.