/2022 INSC 0102/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388   OF 2021
VASUDEV …APPELLANT
Versus
STATE  of M.P.           ...RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari, J .
        Arising   out   of   the   judgment   dated   14.02.2020   passed   in
Criminal   Appeal   No.   622   of   2009   by   the   High   Court   of   Madhya
Pradesh, judicature at  Jabalpur, confirming the judgment dated
7.3.2009   in   S.T.   No.   185   of   2006   passed   by   the   6 th
  Additional
Sessions   Judge   (Fast   Track   Court),   Chhatarpur,   the   present
Special   Leave   Petition   has   been     filed,         in   which   leave   was
granted directing to call for the record.  However, this appeal has
been   registered   and   heard   on   priority   basis   as   the   appellant
being the senior citizen.
1

2. The case of the prosecution in brief  is that on 15.6.2006,
Sub   Inspector   R.S.   Bagri   (PW6)   along   with   Sub­Divisional
Officer    Dr.  Sanjay  Agrawal  (PW10)  reached  village  Mahoi  Kala
on   having   information     at   Police   Station   Sarwai     that
absconding   accused     Rajesh   Shukla   was   hiding     with   his
associate   members   in   the   said   village.       It   was   also   informed
that   accused   Rajesh   Shukla   was   beside     the   house   of   Jhallu
Kachhi of the said village.  The police personnel of nearby police
stations were  called  at Village Mahoi Kala.   Thereafter, under
the   command   of   S.D.O.P.   Dr.   Sanjay   Agrawal   (PW10),   police
parties   were   prepared   to   apprehend   the   accused.   The   police
parties   surrounded   the   house   of   Jhallu   Kachhi.     Dr.   Sanjay
Agrawal   (PW10)   challenged   the   accused   persons   to   surrender
and     come   out     of   the   house   of   Jhallu   Kachhi.     The   accused
Rajesh Shukla did not surrender and open the fire on the police
personnel   from   inside   the   house.     The   police   parties   retaliated
the   firing.     After   sometime,   the   accused   Rajesh     Shukla
expressed   his   wish   to   surrender.     Accordingly,   the   accused
Rajesh   Shukla     along   with   accused/appellant   Vasudev   Shukla
2

surrendered before the police and they were taken into custody.
After   surrendering,   one   315   bore   rifle   along   with   19   live
cartridges and 5 empty cartridges were recovered from accused
Rajesh   Shuka,  whereas       one  12  bore  double  barrel  gun  along
with   20   live   cartridges   and   7   empty   cartridges   were   recovered
from   accused   Vasudev   Shukla.     The   first   information   was
registered   as   Exb.   P­18.     The   weapons,   so   surrendered,   had
been seized at the police station along with live cartridges  Exb.
P­4   to   P­6.       The   accused   persons   were   arrested     vide   arrest
panchnama   Exb.   P9   and   P10.     After   completion   of   the
investigation, challan was filed.  As the  case was triable  by the
Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed to the competent
court,   where   the   charges   under   Sections   307/34   read   with
Section   3/25(1B)(a)   and   Section   27/34   of   the   Arms   Act   were
framed   against   both   the   accused.     The   accused   abjured   their
guilt   and     demanded   trial   by   taking   a   defence   of   false
implication.       Appellant­Vasudev       specifically   taken   defence
that   after   coming   back   from   the   jail,   he   had   surrendered   his
son Rajesh in P.S. Sarwai.  The police personnel have prepared
3

a   false   case   sitting   in   the   police   station,   implicating   the
appellant and c­accused Rajesh Shukla in this case.
3. Prosecution   has   examined   as   many   as   16   witnesses,
while   the   accused   has   not   examined   any   witness   in   defence.
Trial   Court,   after   referring   the   statement   of   the   witnesses,
convicted the accused persons on taking pretext  that they were
aware regarding the challenge of the police party for surrender.
Instead of  surrendering,    the accused persons fired  gun shots,
which were retaliated by the police party.  After sometime, both
the  accused     had  surrendered throwing   their  guns.   The  Trial
Court,   further   observed   that   guns   so   seized,   may   fire   and   the
used and un­used   cartridges of 315 bore as well as a 12 bore
double   barrel   gun   were   seized,   which   finds   support   from   the
FSL Report Exb. P­17A regarding use of the said guns.   As the
accused   persons   were   holding   the   guns,   without   any   license,
therefore,   they   have   been   convicted   for   the   charges   under
Section   307/34   IPC   read   with   Section   3/25   (1B)(a)   and   27   of
the   Arms   Act   and   directed   to   undergo   R.I.   for   four   years   with
fine of Rs. 2,000/­ and  R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1000
4

and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000 respectively   with
default   sentences.     It   was   directed     by   the   Court   that   the
aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.
4. The   judgment   passed   by   the   Trial   Court   was   challenged
before   the   High   Court   by   filing   Criminal   Appeal   No.   622   of
2009.       As   the   appellant   Rajesh   Shukla   died   on   19.2.2016,
therefore, his appeal was dismissed as abated, while  the appeal
of the appellant Vasudev Shukla has been dismissed confirming
the judgment of Trial Court in toto.
5.       Shri   H.K.   Chaturvedi,   learned   counsel     appearing   for   the
appellant   has   argued   with   vehemence   that   as   per   the   case   of
prosecution   itself,   there   was   no   apprehension   of   abscondment
of appellant.  From the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is
clear   that   deceased   co­accused   Rajesh   Shukla   was   allegedly
said to be hiding himself in the house of Jhallu Kachhi and not
the appellant.   The prosecution witnesses have not named and
seen   the   appellant   firing   on   them,   having   intention   and
knowledge to commit the murder.   As per the seizure Exb. P­5,
12   bore   double   barrel   gun,   20   live   cartridges   and   7   empty
5

cartridges were seized from him. FSL report Exb. P­17A clearly
indicates that  there was  disparity to match TC (A2 L.B.) for the
firing   pin   impression   to   Exb.     EC   6,7,8,9,12.     Therefore,   those
five   cartridges were not fired through the left barrel of 12 bore
gun   Exb.   A­2.     Similarly,   the   right   barrel   of   12   bore   gun   Exb.
A­2 , had not been used in firing because it was cut and short
by which weapon could not be matched with the cartridges.   It
is further urged that as per the testimony of the witnesses, it is
clear that  they had not seen firing any of the accused on police
party. It is said the object of the fire was towards hill   and not
towards   the   accused   persons   as     is   apparent   from   the
statement   of   H.C.   Akbar   Singh   Gaur   (PW5).   In   such
circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the intention
and   knowledge   to   commit   an   act   which   may   amounting   to
commission   of   an   offence     attempt     to   murder.     In   absence
thereto,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   for   an   offence   under
Section 307/34 of IPC is contrary to the settled proposition   of
law.   In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on
the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of     Parsuram   Pandey
6

and   others   vs.   State   of   Bihar ,       AIR   2004   SC   5068.       It   is
further  urged that   the right barrel of 12 bore gun seized from
appellant   was   cut   and   short,  making   it   impossible   to   fire   from
this weapon and the empty cartridges have not been fired from
left barrel as apparent from FSL report  Exb. P­17A.  Therefore,
the   offence   under   Section   27   of   the   Arms   Act   has   not   been
made out.  Even assuming that the offence under Section 25(1­
B)(a) is made out, sentence as awarded by the Trial Court is two
years, which the appellant has already served as per the report
available   on   record.     Therefore,   while   setting   aside   the
conviction   and   the   sentence   for   an   offence   under   Sections
307/34   and   27   Arms   Act,   appellant   may   be   directed   to   be
released 
6. Per   contra,   Shri   Mukul   Singh,   learned   counsel
representing   the   State   submits   that   the   Trial   Court   and   the
High  Court  have  rightly  convicted and sentenced the appellant
by the impugned judgment, however interference in this appeal
is   not   warranted   in   exercise   of   power   under   Article   136   of   the
Constitution of India.
7

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, it
is   required   to   be   seen   what   are   the   ingredients   to   prove   an
offence under Section 307 of IPC.  On perusal of the provisions,
it   is   apparent   that   whoever   does   any   act,   with   intention   or
knowledge, which may cause death and in furtherance     to the
said  intention   and   knowledge,  he   was  doing   an   act  towards   it.
However, it is required to be seen   by  the  evidence brought on
record by the prosecution whether the ingredients to prove, the
case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the charge under
Section 307/34 IPC  have been  established.  In this regard, the
star   witnesses   of   the   prosecution   are     ASI   J.P.   Verma   (PW   4),
H.C. Akbar Singh Gaur   (PW5), SDOP   Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW
10),       H.C.   Uday   Raj   Singh   (PW14),   S.I.   Arvind   Singh   Dangi
(PW15) and S.I. R.S. Bagri (PW16). As per their testimonies, it is
apparent that an information of hiding by the deceased accused
Rajesh   Shukla   with   his   associates   in   the   house   of   Jhallu
Kachhi of village Mahoi Kala was received.   In their statements,
it is not said that appellant was with him. The police personnel
of   nearby   police   stations   were     called     at   Village   Mahoi   Kala.
8

Thereafter, under the command of S.D.O.P. Dr. Sanjay Agrawal
(PW10), police parties were prepared to apprehend the accused.
The   police   parties   were   deputed   in   different   directions   and
warning   to   surrender   was   given   to   Rajesh   Shukla.   On   such
warning,   as   stated   by   them,   firing   was   made   from   inside   the
house of Jhallu Kachhi. H.C. Akbar Singh Gaur (PW5) in cross­
examination   clearly   said     that   the   said   firing   was   towards   the
hill   area   and   not   towards   the   police   party.   None   of   the   said
prosecution   witnesses   have   seen   the   appellant   firing   on   police
party,   with   intention   or   knowledge   to   commit   an   offence,
proving  his guilt. Subsequently, as alleged, Rajesh Shukla and
appellant   had   surrendered   along   with   guns   before   the   police
party.     As   per   the   said   testimony,   it   is   apparent   that   the
intention and knowledge to commit an act by them towards the
police   party   has   not   been   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt.
Simultaneously, as per the statement of prosecution witnesses,
it   has   come   on   record   that   all   the   proceedings     including   the
arrest, seizure  have been prepared at the police station and not
on   the   spot.     However,   defence   as   taken   by   the   appellant
9

appears   to   be   plausible,   and   creates   reasonable   doubt   in
proving   the   guilt   by   prosecution.   It   is   not   out   of   place   to
mention   that     three   independent   witnesses     Shivnath   Anuragi
(PW7), Barra (PW8)  and Jhallu Kachhi (PW13), in whose house
incident   had   taken   place,   had   not   supported   the   case   of
prosecution.   As   per   the   cross­examination   of   prosecution
witnesses,   it   is   apparent   that   Santosh   Shukla   was   present   on
the   spot.   He   was   having   good   relations   with   the   SHO   and
inimical   with   the   accused   Rajesh   Shukla.   However,   being
independent   person,   why   in   his   presence,   the   seizure   and   the
arrest     were   not   made   by   police,   is   not   explained   and   highly
doubtful.     There   is   no   independent   witness   in   any   of   the
proceedings   though   may   be   available.     The   High   Court,   while
convicting   the   appellant   by   the   impugned   judgment,   merely
observed   that     because   accused   were   prized   goons     and   were
absconding and as per the deposition, it could not  be said that
the appellant No. 2 was not involved   because he was arrested
on   spot   and   taken   to   police   station.   In   this   regard,     it   is
required to observe that the prosecution is required to prove its
10

case   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   the   conviction   cannot   be
based     merely     on   the   basis   of   presumption   to     rule   out   the
presence of accused.       It is to further observe   that as per FSL
Report   Exb.   P­17A,   it   is   clear   that   from   the   right   barrel   of   12
bore   gun,     Exb.   A­2,     fire   could   not     be   done   and   the   empty
cartridges,   which   were   received,   have   not   been   fired   from   the
left barrel.   Therefore, the use of 12 bore gun which was seized
from   the   appellant     is   not   proved   along   with   live   and   empty
cartridges. As the use of the gun itself  is not established by the
FSL report, therefore, the conviction under Section 27 Arms Act
also   is   not   justified.     Considering     all   these   aspects,   in   our
considered  opinion, the ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC and
Section   27   of   the   Arms   Act   have   not   been   proved   by   the
prosecution   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   proving   the   guilt   of   the
accused/appellant.
8. In   view   of   the   foregoing,   the   Trial   Court   and   High   Court
committed     error   in   convicting     the   appellant   for   the   charge
under   Section   307/34   IPC   read   with   Section   27   Arms   Act.
Therefore,   we   allow   this   appeal   in   part   and   set­aside   the
11

conviction   and   sentence   for     the   said   charges,   and   acquit   the
appellant   for   the   same,   except     of   the   charge   under   Section
25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. The   appellant   has   already   served
the sentence for the charge under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms
Act,   therefore,   if   he   is   not   required   in   any   other   case,     be
released forthwith from jail.
9. Accordingly,   this   appeal   is   allowed   in   part   and   disposed
of.
………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
……………………………J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 1, 2022.
  
12