1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and unlawful possession of a weapon under the Arms Act and TADA. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1458
1996(6) Supreme 771
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Devinder -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1987
Decided on 13-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Rajni Anand, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
Important Points
Non-disclosure of the assailant's name at the first available opportunity (to the treating doctor) and discrepancies regarding the timing and transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate create reasonable doubt, undermining the prosecution's case and justifying the acquittal of the accused.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act r/w Section 6 of TADA-Appellant gave two knife blows on chest and abdomen and deceased-Two eye-witnesses of incident-Recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of appellant-Immediately after assault, deceased was taken to hospital by the eye witness-Deceased was fully conscious-Name of assailant not mentioned in MLC-FIR mentioned name of appellant and was recorded at 2.40 PM on date of incident which took place in the morning-No special report was sent to the Magistrate on that date-It was forwarded only after case was converted u/s 302 IPC on death of victim on next day of incident-Version of prosecution that FIR was recorded on date of occurrence was not true-Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 6 to 9)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution relied on ocular and medical evidence; defense claimed false implication due to prior enmity with witnesses. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Non-disclosure of the assailant's name to the treating doctor and discrepancies in the timing of the FIR registration create reasonable doubt. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Failure to disclose the assailant's name at the earliest opportunity and delayed FIR registration can undermine the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (Para 9 )
6. What is the legal significance of the non-disclosure of an assailant's name to a treating doctor?
Where the victim is conscious and accompanied by witnesses, the failure to disclose the assailant's name to the doctor at the earliest opportunity may create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. (Para 7 )
7. How does a discrepancy in the timing of the FIR and the special report to the Magistrate affect a case?
A glaring discrepancy between the alleged date of the FIR and the date the special report was received by the Magistrate can lead the court to conclude the FIR was not recorded promptly. (Para 8 )
8. When does the benefit of reasonable doubt apply in murder convictions based on ocular evidence?
The benefit of reasonable doubt applies when underlying circumstances, such as delayed FIRs or non-disclosure of the assailant's identity at the first available opportunity, undermine the prosecution's version. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukerhjee, J.-The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated May 30, 1987 rendered by the Designated Court, Rohtak, while disposing of Sessions Case No. 550 of 1986 and Arms Act Case No. 551 of 1986. By the impugned judgment and order the Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Devinder @ Pappy under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 ( TADA for short).
2. Shorn of details the prosecution case is an under : (a) Ramphal (the deceased) used to sell vegetables from his shop-cum-residence in the Janta Colony, Rohtak city. On July 26, 1986 at or about 9 A.M. the appellant went to his shop and asked for some vegetables on credit. Ramphal told the appellant that as he had not paid his earlier dues he would not oblige him any more. Since such refusal of Ramphal was in the presence of two others, namely, Jagdish (P.W.10) and Satbir Singh (PW 11), the appellant felt insulted and left in a huff.
(b) About twenty minutes thereafter the appellant came back with a knife and remarked that he would teach him (Ramphal) a lesson for insulting him in the presence of others. Ramphal, who was then cooking, stood up and attempted to escape. He however could not succeed in his attempt as the appellant gave him two blows with the knife - one on the left side of the chest and the other on the abdomen. Jagdish and Satbir Singh, who were there still then, and one Umesh, who had reached there by chance, witnessed the assault.
(c) Jagdish and Umesh then carried Ramphal in a rickshaw to the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak where he was examined by Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain (PW 5) first. After examination, Dr. Jain sent a medico legal report (Ex. PS) and a rukka (Ex. PD) to the Police Post attached to the hospital where an entry in terms thereof was made by Constable Mangal Singh (PW 1) in the daily diary book at 1.45 P.M. (Ex. PE).
(d) In the meantime, however, - at 11.30 A.M. to be precise - the City Police Station, Rohtak had received a telephonic message from the above Police Post about the admission of Ramphal in the hospital with injuries on his person and, after recording that message in the daily diary book (Ex. PF), ASI Tota Ram (PW 12) had left for the hospital. Reaching there he found Jagdish present and recorded his statement (Ex. PZ) at 2.40 P.M. which was treated as the FIR. After forwarding the statement of the Police Station for registering a case, Tota Ram took up investigation and went to the spot. He prepared a rough site plan and seized some blood-stained earth therefrom in the presence of Jagdish and Satbir.
(e) Ramphal, who was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital, was operated upon by Dr. Pradeep Kumar (PW 7) for his injuries but he succumbed to them on the following day i.e. July 27, 1986 at 11.30 A.M. On receipt of that information the case which was earlier registered against the appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into one under Section 302 IPC and a special Report (Ex. PH) was sent to the local Magistrate. ASI Tota Ram went to the hospital and after holding inquest upon the deadbody of Ramphal, sent it for autopsy which was performed by Dr. M.K. Bishnoi (P.W. 9).
(f) In course of the investigation the appellant was arrested on July 29, 1986 and pursuant to a statement made by him to Tota Ram on July 31, 1986 (Ex. PEE) a spring activated knife concealed under the bricks in a deserted kotha towards the southern boundary wall of Hanuman Park, Rohtak was recovered in the presence of Jagdish (PW 10) and Daya Chand. After recovery of the knife a separate case was registered against the appellant under the Arms Act; 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA.
(g) The blood-stained earth recovered from the spot, the shirt removed from the deadbody of Ramphal and the knife recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Madhuba
