2026-08-17__NEPAL_SINGH_VS_STATE_OF_MADHYA_PRADESH__Crl-A_2239-2240-2026__Diary_23690-2024
2026 INSC 869
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2239-2240 OF 2026
NEPAL SINGH … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
1. By way of the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2018 in
relation to F.I.R.No.6/1993 registered at police station Hatta,
District Damoh, under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18601 the accused persons (6 in number) were
charged to face trial. The genesis of the prosecution story being
that on 06.01.1993 the accused persons formed an unlawful
assembly; and with a common object; caused injuries to Gaflu
1 IPC
2
and Bharat Singh. In furtherance thereof, they also committed an
offence of rioting with deadly weapons. As a result thereof ,
Gaflu died.
2. Challan was presented against 11 accused persons in
relation to the very same offence. To establish their case ,
prosecution examined 17 witnesses and eventually the
prosecution failed to prove the case against only some of the
accused. Jhallu, Karodi, Sanju, Ujju @ Ujiyar and Hannu @
Hanumat were acquitted of but the remaining five accused
persons, including appellant Nepal Singh were found guilty of
having committed offences under Sections 148, 324/149 and
302/149 of IPC. One additional co -accused Prakash Pateriya
expired during trial.
3. Noticeably, the State did not prefer any appeal against the
judgment of acquittal of 5 accused amongst 11 accused persons.
However, in the common appeal preferred by the convicts , the
High Court in terms of the impugned judgment, dismissed the
appeal and concurred with the view taken by the Trial Court.
4. Before us it cannot be disputed that Gaflu, died as a result
of the injuries sustained by him, which fact also stands proven on
record through the medical record and more specifically the
deposition of PW-14 Dr. P.D. Kargaiyan.
5. The question that arises for consideration is to who were
involved in the untoward incident.
3
6. The prosecution alleges the convicts as also the persons
acquitted to have been involved in the incident, and to establish
such fact reliance is placed upon the testimony of PW -6 the
alleged eye-witness, who also sustained injuries in the very same
incident, and PW -7 who is the wife of the deceased. The
examination-in-chief part of the testimonies of these witnesses
undoubtedly establishes that the assailants were the perpetrators,
who, without any sufficient cause assaulted the deceased as well
as the eye-witness (PW-6). But, on a careful perusal of the cross-
examination part of the testimonies , we find the m to have
mutually contradicted themselves. These testimonies are full of
embellishments. To our mind they do not inspire confidence at
all. Their depositions are not worthy of credence . Their
testimonies cannot be believed.
7. PW-6 admits that prior to the incident there was a fight
between Ramsewak and Prakash Pateriya, and on some earlier
occasion there was also a quarrel with Harsewak Pateriya and in
that Ravi Singh sustained injuries. He further admits that Gaflu,
being one of the assailants was also named as an accused in the
said incident. Though the police were hunting for his father, but
however he could not be caught. He contradic ts his earlier
version of his mother being pr