Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Violent Land Dispute Case: Suresh Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 435

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can concurrent findings of lower courts be overturned by the Supreme Court if they are based on the appreciation of evidence? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a violent land dispute. The court examined whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were legally and factually sustainable. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

On December 6, 1992, a dispute arose when Keshav Singh was taking water to his field from Jairam’s tube well. The appellants confronted him for using their ‘Medh’ (a boundary between fields) to channel the water. Despite Keshav Singh’s assurance that he would not do so again, the appellants, along with Rambaran, Ummed Singh, and Ramhet, attacked him. Rambaran struck Keshav Singh on the head with an axe, while Ramhet hit him on the wrist and leg with a lathi. When Keshav Singh’s brothers, Ujjagar Singh and Rai Singh, intervened, they too were attacked. Inder Singh was also injured. Later, Sobran and Suresh joined the assault, further injuring Keshav Singh and Shyam Singh. A free fight ensued when Kali Charan and Mahesh tried to intervene. Keshav Singh lodged a report at the Police Station, Umri, which was registered as FIR No. 131/92. The appellants also lodged a report, registered as FIR No. 132/92. Rambaran later died from his injuries.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The police filed cross-cases against both parties. The Additional Sessions Judge registered S.T. No. 78/1993 against the appellants and S.T. No. 79/1993 against Keshav Singh and others. Both trials were conducted together. On February 20, 1998, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment. Suresh Singh and Ummed Singh were convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000 each. Ramhet and Sobran were convicted under Section 307/149 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000 each. All appellants were also convicted under Sections 323 and 323/149 of the IPC, with sentences of six months of rigorous imprisonment each. The Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the other party in S.T. No. 79/1993. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1998, and the opposite party filed Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1998 before the High Court. The High Court modified the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 109/1998, reducing the sentence under Section 307/149 IPC from seven years to five years while affirming other sentences. The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Complainant’s side in Criminal Appeal No.149/1998 and released the appellants therein on already undergone sentence period. The appellants then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on May 14, 2010. Aggrieved by the High Court judgment dated April 24, 2007, the appellants filed the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 148, IPC: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Addresses the concept of common object in an unlawful assembly.
• Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307, IPC: Defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 323, IPC: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324, IPC: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 325, IPC: Defines the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

These sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are used to determine criminal liability and punishment for offenses related to rioting, assault, and causing hurt.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they had inflicted injuries on the complainant’s party in their right of private defense. They contended that the lower courts did not properly appreciate the evidence. The appellants argued that they were not the aggressors and were only defending themselves. The appellants sought either acquittal or further reduction of their jail sentence.

The respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on due appreciation of evidence. The State contended that the appellants were the aggressors and had used deadly weapons to inflict injuries on the members of the complainant’s party. The State argued that there was no perversity in the findings of the lower courts and that the High Court had already reduced the sentence, which was justified given the facts of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts are legally and factually sustainable?
2. Whether the appellants were acting in their right to private defense?
3. Whether the sentence awarded by the High Court warrants any further reduction?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Article 136 of the Constitution of India: The Court used this provision to justify its reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, emphasizing that such interference is warranted only when there is a clear error or perversity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which were based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with such findings unless there was a clear error or perversity. The Court also noted that the appellants had used deadly weapons, making their actions more serious. The Court found no merit in the appellants’ claim of private defense, as they were found to be the aggressors. The Court also considered that the High Court had already reduced the sentence, and there was no reason to reduce it further.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court stated, “It is a settled principle of law that when the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the accused person which are based on due appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere in such concurrent findings…”. The court further added, “On perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the injured eyewitnesses inasmuch as we are not able to notice any kind of perversity or contradiction or inconsistency in their version.”. The Court also noted, “In our view, there is an evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the appellants were armed with the deadly weapons and were the aggressors in hitting the abovenamed persons with the weapons due to which injured persons suffered several injuries.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court is generally reluctant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a clear error or perversity.
• A claim of private defense will not be accepted if the accused is found to be the aggressor.
• The use of deadly weapons can be a significant factor in determining the severity of the offense and the sentence.
• The High Court’s reduction of sentence may be considered sufficient, and further reduction may not be warranted.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a clear error or perversity. This case reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not re-appreciate evidence unless there are compelling reasons to do so. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and held that the appellants were the aggressors and did not act in private defense. The Court also held that the High Court’s reduction of sentence was justified, and no further reduction was warranted.