# RAMVILAS v. STATE OF M.P

- **Citation:** [2015] 9 S.C.R. 205
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-08-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos.1.786-1787 of 2009
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramvilas-v-state-of-m-p-30662
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s. 149, 324, 323 rlw s. 149
A
B
and 148 - Murder -
Victim-deceased attacked by the c
appellants and other accused by lathis, pistol and spears -
When his family members tried to save !Jim, they also
received injuries - Deceased succumbed to injuries -
Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: All the eye
witnesses consistently spoke about the occurrence and the D
overt acts of the accused including the appellant - Courts
below recorded the concurrent findings of fact observing that
the testimony of eye witnesses was credible and trustworthy
- Prosecution witnesses being injured, their presence at the
place of incident cannot be doubted- Conviction of appellant E ·
was based on evidence of injured witnesses which was amply
corroborated by the evidence of eye-witnesses .and medical
evidence - Interference with order of conviction not called
for.
Evidence: Injured witness - Testimony of, evidentiary
value- Held: Evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to great
weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required
to discard such evidence.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
G
HELD: 1. In the incident, PW-3 and PW-5, sister of
the deceased sustained injuries. PW-3 and PW-5 being
injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place H
205
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 9 S.C.R.
A of occurrence cannot be doubted. Evidence of the
injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very
cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard
the evidence of the injured witnesses. There is no
ground to disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses
B PW-3 and PW-5. [Para 6] [209-E-F]
2. As observed by the High Court all the eye
witnesses have spoken in one voice so far as carrying
of 'katta' by appellant and, therefore, his presence at the
c scene of occurrence cannot be doubted merely because
no 'katta' was recovered from him. It came out in the
evidence that the appellant had exhorted the other
accused in attacking the deceased and also actually
participated in the attack. As pointed out by the courts
D below that the appellant nowhere pleaded in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was
. neither present at the scene of occurrence nor involved
in the incident. The conviction of the appellant is based
E
on the evidence of injured witnesses which is amply
corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and
medical evidence. Conviction of the appellant is based
on proper appreciation of evidence and courts below
have recorded concurrent findings and the same is not
F liable to be interfered with in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 7, 8] [209- ·
H; 210-A-D]

## Text

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 205
RAMVILAS
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1.786-1787 of 2009)
AUGUST 18, 2015
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s. 149, 324, 323 rlw s. 149
A
B
and 148 - Murder -
Victim-deceased attacked by the c
appellants and other accused by lathis, pistol and spears -
When his family members tried to save !Jim, they also
received injuries - Deceased succumbed to injuries -
Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: All the eye
witnesses consistently spoke about the occurrence and the D
overt acts of the accused including the appellant - Courts
below recorded the concurrent findings of fact observing that
the testimony of eye witnesses was credible and trustworthy
- Prosecution witnesses being injured, their presence at the
place of incident cannot be doubted- Conviction of appellant E ·
was based on evidence of injured witnesses which was amply
corroborated by the evidence of eye-witnesses .and medical
evidence - Interference with order of conviction not called
for.
Evidence: Injured witness - Testimony of, evidentiary
value- Held: Evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to great
weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required
to discard such evidence.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
G
HELD: 1. In the incident, PW-3 and PW-5, sister of
the deceased sustained injuries. PW-3 and PW-5 being
injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place H
205
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 9 S.C.R.
A of occurrence cannot be doubted. Evidence of the
injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very
cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard
the evidence of the injured witnesses. There is no
ground to disbelieve the evidence of injured witnesses
B PW-3 and PW-5. [Para 6] [209-E-F]
2. As observed by the High Court all the eye
witnesses have spoken in one voice so far as carrying
of 'katta' by appellant and, therefore, his presence at the
c scene of occurrence cannot be doubted merely because
no 'katta' was recovered from him. It came out in the
evidence that the appellant had exhorted the other
accused in attacking the deceased and also actually
participated in the attack. As pointed out by the courts
D below that the appellant nowhere pleaded in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was
. neither present at the scene of occurrence nor involved
in the incident. The conviction of the appellant is based
E
on the evidence of injured witnesses which is amply
corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and
medical evidence. Conviction of the appellant is based
on proper appreciation of evidence and courts below
have recorded concurrent findings and the same is not
F liable to be interfered with in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 7, 8] [209- ·
H; 210-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
G
Appeal Nos. 1786-1787 of2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2007 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at _Jabalpur in Criminal
Application Nos. 377 and 481of1995
"'
WITH
H Crl. A No. 1788-1789 of 2009
..
RAMVILAS v. STATE OF M.P.
207
·Ajay Veer Singh, R.K. Verma, Rakesh KumarKhare,Atul A
Agrawal, Naresh Kumar, Mohd. lrshad HaniffortheAppellant.
Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. In these appeals, the appellants
challenge the correctness of the judgment passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeals
No.377 of 1995 and 481 of 1995 whereby the Hig~ Court
confirmed the conviction and sentence awprded to the C
appellants by the trial court under Sections 302 read with
Section 149 IPC, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and
148 IPC.
2.
Case of the prosecution is that on 23:07.1991
D
at about 7.00 O'clock in the morning at village Hathighat,
deceased-Bansilal had gone towards the riverside to attend
nature's call. One Harisingh Kachhi (PW-7), Jagdish (PW13) and Noor Khan (PW-9) came to the house of Narmada
E
Prasad (PW-3) and informed him that the accused-appellants
were assaulting his brother-Bansilal. Narmada Prasad (PW3) immediately rushed to the spot alongwith them and near
'otla' of Hardul Baba, he noticed that all the appellants armed
with lethal weapons had surrounded his brother-Bansilal.
F
Appellants Chhotelal, Kailash and Suresh were armed with
spears, appellant-Ramvilas was armed with pistol, whereas
appellants Ramsingh and Gorelal were carrying lathis with
them. When Bansilal tried to escape, appellant-Ramvilas fired
a shot from his pistol and when Bansilal fell down, appellants G
Chhotelal and Kailash attacked him with spear on his scalp
and forehead. When Narmada Prasad (PW-3) tried to
intervene, appellant-Kailash attacked Narmada Prasad with
spear and caused injury below his right eye. Then Uma Bai
(PW-5) sister of the deceased and Sona Bai-mother of the H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A
<;leceased tried to save Bansilal, the appellants Kailash and
Ram Singh also attacked them. Appellant-Ramvilas intimidated
and threatened the persons present there and said that if
. anybody would intervene, he would be shot dead. The
· appellants gave repeated blows to Bansilal by spear and lathis
B and then fled away. Injured Bansilal was immediately taken to
the hospital where he was declared dead. On the complaint
lodged by Narmada Prasad (PW-3), brother of the deceased;
FIR was registered in Criminal Case No.131of1991 under
Sections.147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 IPC at PS Nasirullahganj.
C After due investigation, the appellants were prosecuted under
Sections 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149, 324, 324 read
with Section 149, 323 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court
D convicted the appellant-Ramvilas and other accused under
Sections 302 read with Section 149, 324, 323 read with
Section 149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
· imprisonment and further imposed sentence of imprisonment
for other offences. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the
E conviction of the appellants and also the sentence of
imprisonment imposed on each of them. These appeals assail
the correctness of the impugned judgment. On application filed
onbehalf of the appellants, the appeal was dismissed as
F withdrawn qua the appellants Suresh (A 1 ), Kailash (A2) and
Ram Singh (A4) by the Chamber Judge Order dated
18.02.2013.
4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Ajay Veer Singh,
the learned counsel for the third appellant-Ramvilas and also
G the learned counsel appearing for the State. We have carefully
considered the rival contentions and perused the evidence on
record and also the impugned judgment.
I
5.Gonviction of the appellant-Ramvilas and other accused
H
..
-
RAMVILAS v. STATE OF M.P. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
209
is based mainly on the evidence adduced by six eye witnesses,
A
namely, Narmada Prasad (PW3), Rekha Bai(PW-4), Uma Bai
(PW-5), Hari Singh (PW-7), Noor Khan (PW-9) and Jagdish
(PW-13) coupled with other corroborative evidence. All the
eye witnesses have consistently spoken about the occurrence
and the overt acts of the accused including the appellantB
Ramvilas. Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings
of fact observing that the testimony of eye witnesses is credible
and trustworthy. Deceased~Bansilal had sustained as many
as twenty six injuries. Evidence of eye witnesses is amply
corroborated by medical evidence. By perusal of the records,
C
no cogent reasons are forthcoming to disbelieve the testimony
of the eye witnesses and we find no reason to interfere with
the concurrent findings recorded by the courts accepting the
evidence of eye witnesses as trustworthy.
6. In the incident, Narmada Prasad (PW-3) and Uma Bai
(PW-5) sister of the deceased sustained injuries and Ex.P-9
and Ex. P-10 are the MLC Reports of Narmada Prasad (PWD
3) and Uma Bai (PW-5) respectively issued by Dr. S.K. Dhoble
(PW-10). Narmada Prasad (PW-3) and Uma Bai (PW-5) being
E
injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of
occurrence cannot be doubted. Evidence of the injured
witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and
convincing grounds are required to discard the evidence of F
the injured witnesses. We do not find any ground to disbelieve
the evidence of injured witnesses Narmada Prasad (PW-3)
and Uma B~i (PW-5).
7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay Veer Singh
contended that the presence of appellant-Ramvilas at the G
scene of occurrence was doubtful as no 'katta' was seized
from him nor any gun shot injury.was found on the person of ·
deceased-Bansilal. As observed by the High Court all the eye
witnesses have spoken in one voice so far as carrying of 'katta' H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 9 S.C.R.
A
by appellant-Ramvilas and therefore his presence at the scene
of occurrence cannot be doubted merely because no 'katta'
was recovered from him. It has come out in the evidence that
the appellant-Ramvilas had exhorted the other accused in
attacking the deceased and also actually participated in the
B attack. As pointed out by the courts below that the appellantRamvilas nowhere pleaded in his examination under Section
313 Cr.P.C. that he was neither present at the scene of
occurrence nor involved in the incident.
C
8. The conviction of the appellant-Ramvilas is based on
the evidence of injured witnesses which is amply corroborated
by the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence.
Conviction of the appellant is based on proper appreciation
of evidence and courts below have recorded concurrent
D findings and the same is not liable to be interfered with in
exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
9. These appeals are dismissed.
E
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed.
•
-