Mangal Singh And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Bharat

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 19 September 1956

Coram: Imam, J.

In this matter the appellants sought special leave to appeal the judgment of the Madhya Bharat High Court. The High Court had affirmed that the appellants were guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the killing of Suratsingh and Shardulsingh, and had imposed transportation for life on each of them. In addition, the High Court found the appellants guilty of causing hurt under Section 324 read with Section 34, because they had shot the victims, and sentenced each of them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment for that offence. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently. At the trial level, the Sessions Judge had initially sentenced Mangalsingh to death and the other appellants to transportation for life for the murders. On review, the High Court reduced Mangalsingh’s death sentence to transportation for life. Moreover, the Sessions Judge had framed charges under Section 307 together with Section 34, and, upon conviction, had sentenced the appellants to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court altered those convictions to Section 324 with Section 34 and accordingly reduced the term of imprisonment to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The trial had been conducted with the assistance of four assessors, all of whom had expressed the opinion that the appellants were guilty of the charges framed against them.

The factual background described a violent episode that occurred on 7 March 1953 at approximately six in the evening on the Bhilsa‑Pachhar road. The victims who lost their lives were brothers, Suratsingh and Shardulsingh. They had two other brothers, Surjansingh (P. W. 15) and Santokhsingh (P. W. 16). Earlier on the same day, at around ten or eleven in the morning, Dalipsingh, one of the appellants, arrived at Suratsingh’s house in Hinnoda together with Tarasingh and invited Suratsingh and Shardulsingh to go hunting. Suratsingh declined the invitation. Later, at about three or four in the afternoon, the four brothers went to bathe in a shallow river near the village. Suratsingh and Shardulsingh entered the water while Surjansingh and Santokhsingh remained seated on the river bank. Shortly thereafter the appellants approached from the opposite side of the river, each carrying firearms, and were accompanied by Tarasingh who bore a revolver. Tarasingh discharged his revolver, striking Suratsingh in the left arm. Dalipsingh, wielding a rifle, fired at Shardulsingh, hitting him in the leg. After the shooting, Surjansingh and Santokhsingh fled the scene but later returned, applied bandages to the wounds of Suratsingh and Shardulsingh, and arranged for a bullock‑cart to be fetched from Hinnoda. The injured brothers were placed on the cart with the intention of being taken to the Pachhar Police Station. The cart proceeded along a dry track before reaching the Bhilsa‑Pachhar road.

The appellants together with Tarasingh arrived at the scene. Mangalsingh, one of the appellants, instructed the others to kill the deceased persons and also to eliminate their brothers Surjansingh and Santokhsingh. After giving this order Mangalsingh shot at Shardulsingh and struck him in the chest. Surjansingh and Santokhsingh fled from the spot. The time was about six in the evening and darkness was beginning to fall. While they were running away they heard additional gunshots and they also observed the appellants driving away the bullock‑cart that had been used to carry the injured men. Surjansingh and Santokhsingh then concealed themselves in the jungle and remained hidden there until about midnight, when the moon rose. After the moon appeared they left the jungle and proceeded to Chak Mullakhedi, the residence of their uncle Dalipsingh, who was identified as PW 14. Early the next morning they travelled to Hinnoda and informed the wife of Suratsingh that Suratsingh and Shardul Singh had been murdered. The wife told them that the bullocks belonging to the bullock‑cart had returned during the night. Consequently Surjansingh, Santokhsingh, Dalipsingh and a man named Tejasingh set out for the Pachhar Police Station so that they could file a formal report. The report was lodged at nine‑thirty in the morning. The initial information lodged with the police mentioned that the cart had not been seen on the road at the location where Surjansingh and Santokhsingh last observed it. The description of the place indicated that between mile number four and mile number five on the metalled Bhilsa‑Pachhar road a small track (kucha path) diverged toward the village of Devkhedi. While walking on this track to the police station, the watchman Bhogi, identified as PW 10, discovered a completely burnt cart and two charred bodies lying beneath the burnt wood and the scorched grass surrounding the cart. He promptly proceeded to the Pachhar Police Station and reported the discovery of the two dead bodies. This sequence of facts constitutes the case presented by the prosecution.

One of the charred bodies was identified as that of Shardulsingh, and the High Court judgment does not contain any submission that would render this identification doubtful. The body of Suratsingh was also identified, although the description of his remains could have raised some doubt. Nevertheless, the surrounding circumstances make it clear that the two charred bodies could not have been anyone other than Suratsingh and Shardulsingh. No argument was advanced before this Court that the charred bodies were not those of Suratsingh and Shardulsingh. The defence suggested only that the two victims might have been killed during the night while they were allegedly engaged in a dacoity. The burnt bullock‑cart was found not far from the place where the victims had first been attacked on the road. There is no evidence that any other bullock‑cart was missing in that locality. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that the two charred bodies lying beneath the burnt cart, which were discovered by the watchman, were the bodies of Suratsingh and Shardulsingh and that the cart belonged to them. The first shooting incident had occurred at three or four in the afternoon on 7 March 1953, and the second shooting incident took place at six in the evening on the same day.

On the same day, an incident that occurred on the Bhilsa‑Pachar road was observed by two individuals, identified in the record as Surjansingh, referred to as plaintiff‑witness fifteen, and Santokhsingh, identified as plaintiff‑witness sixteen. Both of these witnesses were accepted as credible by every level of the trial court system, including the assessors, the Sessions Judge, and the judges of the High Court. The testimony they gave left no room for doubt that the accused persons were responsible for the murder and for causing injury to the deceased victim. In an ordinary case, such clear and unanimous evidence would ordinarily be sufficient to close the matter. Nevertheless, the defense raised an objection, contending that the charges had been improperly joined together. The record shows that this objection was not presented before the High Court, as there is no mention of it in that Court’s judgment, nor was it included in the petition for special leave. Because the issue was never raised in the lower proceedings, the court concluded that the accused could not be allowed to introduce this point at the appellate stage.

The appellants also argued that a substantial amount of evidence concerning their alleged bad character had been admitted, and that this evidence was prejudicial and therefore inadmissible, claiming that the lower courts had been biased against them on that basis. Upon review, it appeared that the evidence relating to the appellants’ past conduct was introduced not to portray them as generally disreputable persons likely to commit murder, but rather to help determine a possible motive for the crime. Certain portions of the evidence further indicated that some of the accused might have possessed firearms. A careful examination of the judgments of the lower courts showed that none of this character evidence was used to bolster any uncertain or doubtful testimony; rather, the convictions rested entirely on the eyewitness accounts of Surjansingh and Santokhsingh. The defence also suggested that because the two eye‑witnesses were interested parties, their statements should have been corroborated by independent witnesses. The court observed that such a requirement cannot be applied universally. In the present facts, the statements of the two witnesses were corroborated by the surrounding circumstances: the charred bodies of Suratsingh and Shardulsingh and the burnt bullock‑cart were discovered close to the location where the appellants had first attacked the victims. Consequently, the court found that the factual findings of the lower courts were adequately supported and that no substantial question arose warranting interference. For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.