NDLI: Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860: s. 302 Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution case that three accused, A1, A2 and A3 in furtherance of common intention, attacked, brother of A1 with weapons, resulting in his death – A2 took victim to the hospital and sent information to the police that the assault was committed by PW 6 and 7 – Conviction and sentence of A1, A2 and A3 u/s. 302 rw s. 34 by the courts below – Appeal by A2 and A3 before this Court – Held: Right from the beginning there was an attempt on the part of the prosecution to shield the culprits named in the first FIR, on account of political pressure, as admitted by the IO and corroborated by the main witness – IO carried out the investigation with the intention to turn the informant and her family members as the accused and allow the real culprits named in the FIR to escape – Admissions on the part of the main witness made the prosecution case completely untrustworthy – Prosecution witness who allegedly witnessed the seizure turned hostile – Courts below overlooked the important admissions made by the IO and the main witness – They did not take into account the normal human conduct – There was failure on the part of the prosecution to establish that the blood stains contained on the knife and lathis were that of the deceased – Furthermore, it is unbelievable that the three accused (A-1, 2 and 3) caused the death of the victim due to his failure to return Rs.250/-, due and payable to a third person (PW-7) and that thereafter, they deliberately named PW-7 as the accused – Thus, order of conviction of A2 and A3 by the courts below, set aside – Since the story of the prosecution has been disbelieved in entirety, to deny the benefit of the said conclusion to A1 merely on ground of a technicality that he is not on appeal would be unjustified – Conviction of A12 also set aside. Criminal law: Alibi – Plea of – Effect on investigation – Held: At times persons committing a crime, themselves lodge the first information, to create an alibi of innocence – However, in such cases the investigation would normally proceed first against those named as accused in the FIR and, thereafter, the suspicion mayConstitution of India: Art. 142 – Power under – Scope of – Benefit of the instant appeal to co-accused who has not come up on appeal – Denial of – Held: Denial of the benefit of the conclusion of the matter in the appeal, to the said co-accused merely on the ground of a technicality that he is not on appeal would be gross injustice, when this Court is empowered u/Art. 142 to do complete justice – On facts, this Court has not proceeded on the basis of individual overt acts on the part of accused in appeal, to conclude that they are entitled to acquittal – Thus, conviction and sentence of the co-accused also set aside.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 413
Petitioner	Madhav
Respondent	State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2021] 8 S.C.R. 451
Judgement Date	2021-08-18
Case Number	852

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

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Shanker Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Brajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Jagdish and Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Onkar Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Rakesh & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ram Viswas Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Shanker Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Brajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Jagdish and Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Onkar Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Rakesh & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Ram Viswas Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh