RAMVILAS versus STATE OF M.P.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 205, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[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 (PW-
13) 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 (PW-
3) 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 appellant-
B 
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 (PW-
D 
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 appellant-
Ramvilas 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. 
• 
-