NDLI: Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	ss. 341 eye witnesses 302 r/w. 34 – Arms Act – s. 25(1A) r/w. s.27 Consistent versions IPC
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 341, 302 r/w. 34 – Arms Act – s. 25(1A)r/w. s.27 – Prosecution case was that PW-2, PW-13 and victim were going on a motorcycle, on the way, they were stopped by accused(No.1 to 4) – Accused No.2 and 3 caught hold of victim and accused No.1 fired on the face of the victim from a very close range – Victim died instantly – Incident was witnessed by PW-2, 3 & 13 – Trial Court convicted accused (No.1 to 4) u/s. 341, 302 r/w. 34 IPC and accused No.1 was also convicted u/s. 25(1A) r/w. s.27 of Arms Act– Conviction affirmed by the High Court – Accused (No.1 to 3)preferred appeal – Appellants-accused contended that there were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of eyewitnesses PW-2, 3 & 13 – Held: So long as the evidence of eyewitnesses is found credible and trustworthy, their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground of minor contradictions – In instant case,PW-2, 3 & 13 had given a consistent and clear account of the incident – The alleged contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitnesses urged by the appellant are trivial and it does not affect the case of the prosecution – The contradictions pointed out in the evidence of PW-2, 3 & 13 were normal discrepancies which are due to normal errors of observations which, do not effect trustworthiness of the witnesses.Evidence – Consistent versions of prosecution witnesses on the touchstone of medical evidence – Appellant contended that there were inconsistencies between the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence – Held: The evidence of eye-witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice – Merely because victim sustained injuries of different shapes, on the opinionative medical evidence, the consistent evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be doubted – In instant case, the inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of eye-witness inter se and the alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence are minor contradictions and they do not shake the prosecution case – Thus,the consistent version of PW-2, 3 and 13 cannot be decided on the touchstone of medical evidence.Penal Code, 1860 – s.34 – Common intention – Trial Court convicted accused (No.1 to 4) u/ss.341, 302/34 IPC – Conviction affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: If accused Nos. 2and 3 had shared common intention, they would also had attacked the victim, but they were only alleged to have caught hold of the victim – Prosecution did not bring in evidence that there was prior meeting of minds and that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were having knowledge that their brother-accused No.1 was armed with Katta –Thus, conviction of accused Nos. 2 & 3 u/s. 302 r/w s.34 set aside.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 226
Petitioner	Balvir Singh
Respondent	State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2019] 4 S.C.R. 545
Judgement Date	2019-02-19
Case Number	1115

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Imrat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana

Devilal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandgi Ram & Ors.

Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Punjab Vs. Hari Singh & Anr

State of U.p. Vs. Jagram & Ors.

Brijesh Mavi Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Imrat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana

Devilal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandgi Ram & Ors.

Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Punjab Vs. Hari Singh & Anr

State of U.p. Vs. Jagram & Ors.

Brijesh Mavi Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh