KALYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on November 21,2006

KALYAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE VS. MRITYUNJAY PANDEY [LAWS(UTN)-2009-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RAJENDRA JADLI [LAWS(UTN)-2010-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(UTN)-2010-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. GYAN SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2010-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
ANIMA PODDAR VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-6-106] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE VS. ADESH KUMAR GARG [LAWS(UTN)-2009-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-213] [REFERRED TO]
MAHTAB SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI VS. POPATBHAI MANILAL [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-162] [REFERRED TO]
V VENKATA SUBBARAO VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
ARULVELU VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2009-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
BHUMESH KUMAR VS. RANVIR NANDA [LAWS(UTN)-2010-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
BYNOBOINA VALI RAJU VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PARAMANAND [LAWS(UTN)-2008-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE VS. JAN ALI AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2010-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(UTN)-2010-6-300] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. IQBAL [LAWS(UTN)-2009-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
ANIMA PODDAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA; UTTAM GHOSH; SITA DEB; BABUL GHOSH [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-7-95] [REFERRED]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. MILAN DEBNATH [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-1-46] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. JAGPAT SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL-RAHIMAN S/O IBRAHIM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. HARSH GOEL @ MUNNA [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-146] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by the appellant herein arises out of a judgment dated 8.11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby and whereunder the criminal appeal preferred by the State questioning an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge against three accused persons, namely, Gulab Singh, Ashok Kumar and Kalyan Singh, was allowed in part and the appellant herein was convicted for the alleged commission of offence u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court by reason of the said judgment, however, dismissed the appeal pre ferred by Budh Singh who had been convicted by the learned Trial Judge u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The incident occurred at about 4.30 p.m. on 31.7.1989. The first informant Gyan Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, had gone to take bath at the well of one Dangal Singh Yadav. Allegedly Gyan Singh, who was also coming to the well for taking bath, found that his brother had been taking bath using soap on his body when Budh Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel rifle, Kalyan Singh armed with 12 bore double barrel rifle, Ashok Yadav armed with Topidar rifle of Kalyan and Gulab and Dashrath armed with rifles reached the spot and surrounded the well. The appellant herein is said to have given an exhortation pursuant whereto Budh Singh fired at Durga Singh Rawat (the deceased) from behind resulting in his death. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved that part of the prosecution story whereby Kalyan Singh, Ashok Kumar and Gulab Singh were roped in, inter alia on the ground that Gyan Singh (PW-1) stated in his deposition that Kalyan Singh said: "hit sale main" "he should not escape", but the statement of Munna Lal (PW-2) is that Kalyan Singh said to Budh Singh: "hit sale main", and thus there was contradiction between the statement of PW-1 and PW-2.
(3.)The learned Trial Judge opined that having regard to the enmity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons, benefit of doubt should be given to Kalyan Singh that he had given the exhortation. The learned Trial Judge thereafter discussed the evidence and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that the same was not reliable vis-a-vis the implication of the said Kalyan Singh.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.