State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs.Chandu & Ors.
WITH CRL.A.
NOs.763-765 OF 2005 AND CRL.A. NOs.766-769 OF 2005
JUDGMENT
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
1.
This
judgment will dispose of three sets of Criminal Appeal Nos. 207-209/2005, 763-765/2005,
and 766-769/2005 as they arise out of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court dated 18th September 2003. In the light of the fact that we intend to
remand this matter to the High Court for re-decision, only the bare facts are
being given. The incident happened at about midnight of the night intervening the
29th and 30th June 1995. In all three matters, the allegations are that the
appellants and some others all armed with firearms had first entered the house
of Mardan Singh PW and shot dead Devendrasingh, Shankarsingh and Komalsingh; they
had thereafter entered the house of Ashoksingh and shot and killed him and his
wife Purnawati and thereafter entered the house of Betal Singh and shot him dead
as well. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence in the case awarded
a death sentence to Chandu and a sentence of life imprisonment to Balveer and
Bheekam for the first incident. For the second incident, Balveer was sentenced
to death, and for the third Chandu was sentenced to death and Bheekam to life imprisonment.
The trial court observed that the eye witness account inspired confidence and though
there was one eye witness for each of the three incidents, the accused had been
identified by the witnesses as they were all belonged to the same village and
were neighbours. The trial court also held that there was evidence to show the
presence of light bulbs in each of the houses by which the accused had been
identified. The matters were then taken to the High Court in murder references
and in appeal. The High Court has declined the murder references and Crl.
Appeal No.207-209/2005 allowed the appeal acquitting the accused. The High
Court noticed several arguments raised before it but by a cryptic judgment
disposed of the matter in one paragraph observing hat as there appeared to be
no light in any of the three houses where the murders had been committed, it
was apparent that the eye witnesses could not have identified the accused. The
present set of appeals has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh impugning
the judgment of the HighCourt.
2.
Several
arguments were raised by Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned counsel for the State
of Madhya Pradesh. He has primarily pointed out that the High Court had misread
the evidence with regard to the presence of the electric lights/connections at
the three places where the murders had been committed and that the Court had ignored
vital aspects in the evidence while rendering its judgment with regard to six ghastly
murders.
3.
Mr.
T.N. Singh and Mr. S.K. Dubey, the learned senior counsel for the respondents,
have however, pointed out that it was not open to this Court, in normal
circumstances, to Crl. Appeal No.207-209/2005 interfere in an appeal against an
acquittal recorded by the High Court as the High Court was the final court of
fact and that if the view taken by the High Court was possible on the evidence
and not perverse, interference should not be made. They have also referred us
to several parts of the evidence to argue that the evidence in the matter was
discrepant not only with regard to the provision of an electric connection or
the presence of an electric bulb but even on other vital aspects including the
fact that FIR had been recorded after a longdelay.4. As already noted above, we
are not inclined to examine the evidence as we intend to remand the matter for
a fresh hearing. We are of the opinion that the High Court's order was cryptic
and did not minutely examine the evidence though it was the final court of fact
and more particularly as it involved six murders. We make it clear that we are
not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but we do feel that a more
elaborate and comprehensive discussion on the evidence was required to be made.
We, thus, feel it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court so that the
remedy which may subsequently be available to either of the parties before the
Supreme Court, is not taken away. We, accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside
the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for fresh
decision to be rendered after a re-appraisal of the evidence. In the light of
the fact that the respondents herein have been acquitted by the High Court, we
deem it proper notwithstanding that these appeals are being allowed that they
shall continue to remain on bail till the matter is finally disposed off by the
High Court. We, once again, reiterate that any observation made herein should
not be read as a reflection of our opinion on the merits of the case. The parties
are directed to appear before the Registrar of the High Court on the 10th
January 2011, for the purpose of fixing a date for final hearing. We also
request to the High Court to dispose of the references and the appeals as
expeditiously as possible.
........................................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
........................................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI K. R. PRASAD)
New
Delhi,
December
02, 2010.
Back