Back
1998(1) Supreme 150
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Babu Ram -Appellant
versus
State (Delhi Administration) & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 626-627 of 1989
Decided on 8-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant, S.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1, Dr. Saraf, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pankaj Bala Verma, C.B. Babu, D.S. Mehra, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 2-3, M. Qamaruddin,, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Advocates.
Held : Merely because the prosecution witnesses had stated that deceased Padam Singh was held by Om Prakash from behind it cannot be said that no blow with a knife could have been given by the other accused on the back of the deceased. (Para 10)
Further held : Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of the Investigation Officer on the basis of which it can be said that the investigation had disclosed that there were other eye witnesses. In absence of any material it was not at all proper to reject the prosecution evidence on the ground that independent witnesses from the locality were not examined as eye witnesses. (Para 11)
As we find that the High Court has rejected the evidence of the three eye-witnesses on grounds which are not sustainable the order of acquittal passed by it will have to be set aside. That is not a case where on appreciation of evidence a different view has been taken. As pointed out above the findings of the High Court are based upon incorrect reading of the evidence and grounds which are not tenable. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial Court whereby the accused respondents were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. (Para 12)
(ii) First Information Report-High Court doubting correctness of entries made in FIR regarding time and names of accused-Report contained names of accused and witnesses and also substance of information-Report despatched at 5.00 P.M. as stated in report itself-Finding of High Court based upon improper appreciation - Vitiated-Details regarding incident reached Police Station by about 5.30 P.M. No delay in recording FIR.
Held : The report contains the names of the accused and the witnesses and also the substance of the information received by him. The statement of Babu Ram also contained all those details. This report was dispatched at 5.00 p.m. as stated in the report itself. The High Court really misunderstood the D.D. entry No. 16A and overlooked the other evidence in that behalf. Therefore, its finding based upon such improper appreciation stands vitiated. (Para 6)
All these pieces of evidence clearly establish that all the details regarding the incident had reached the police station by about 5.30 p.m. We, therefore, hold that there was no delay in recording the FIR and that it was truly recorded. (Para 7)
Key Points: - Acquittal set aside because High Court rejected credible eye-witness evidence without sustainable grounds (!) (!) . - Court held that injury on back of deceased does not preclude other accused inflicting wounds, even if one accused held victim from behind (!) (!) . - FIR recorded at 5:35 p.m. was not delayed; contents including names of accused and witnesses were complete and dispatched at 5:00 p.m. (!) (!) . - Evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded solely for being inconsistent with medical evidence or appearing in multiple cases (!) (!) (!) . - High Court erred in doubting prosecution evidence due to lack of independent witnesses; no material showed investigation revealed other witnesses (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeals Nos. 116/84 and 131/84. Criminal Appeal No. 116/84 was filed by convicted accused Lala Ram and Om Prakash. Criminal Appeal No. 131/84 was filed by accused Thakur Singh. The three accused were tried and convicted for the offence of murder, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 52/82.
2. The prosecution case was that a few days prior to the date of the incident, wherein Padam Singh lost his life, a quarrel had taken place between Padam Singh and the accused. But the father and brother of Padam Singh intervened and pacified them. On 19.2.1982 at about 4.15 p.m. when Padam Singh was passing through Gali No. 4, the three accused caught him and told him that he was saved earlier by his father and brother but they would not leave him on that day. Om Prakash held Padam Singh from behind and the other two accused, namely, Thakur Singh and Lala Ram inflicted injuries on the front and back of Padam Singh with daggers. Babu Ram, father of Padam Singh, who was following Padam Singh, saw this incident and raised cries for saving his son and catching the accused. Hearing his cries many people, including Prabhu Dayal, Pyare Lal, Sua Lal and others, came there. Babu Ram himself was able to catch hold of accused Lala Ram. Prabhu Dayal ran after Om Prakash and caught him. Thakur Singh was caught while running away by Pyare Lal and Sua Lal. Meanwhile the police party headed by Sub-inspector Dharam Pal, which was on patrolling duty, reached that spot and came to know about the incident. The three accused who were caught by that time were handed over to the police. On these allegations all the three accused were tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution examined Babu Ram (PW-3), Pyare Lal (PW-4), Prabhu Dayal (PW-6) and Sua Lal (PW-7) as eye witnesses. It also lead other supporting and corroborative evidence. The trial court rejected the contention of the accused that there was delay in recording the FIR and that the delay was because till the next day morning names of the assailants were not known. It believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and held all the three accused guilty.
4. The High Court, mainly relying upon the substance of information noted in Ex. DW 2/A based upon D.D. entry No. 16A, recorded in Rojnamcha, maintained at the Patel Nagar Police Station, which did not contain names of the accused, names of the eye witnesses, the place of occurrence and the weapons used and also the circumstance that copy of the FIR had reached the Ilaka Magistrate at 10.00 a.m. on 20.2.1982, held that in all probability the FIR was not recorded till next day morning. The High Court also held that the circumstance, that the dead body was not removed from the spot till 1.10 a.m. and that the formal arrest of the accused was shown at about 1.30 a.m., also created a doubt regarding the genuineness of the version given in the FIR. The High Court rejected the evidence of eye witnesses on the ground that injury No. 8, could not have been caused if the deceased was held by accused Om Prakash in the manner stated by them. Another reason given by the High Court for discarding their evidence is that they were appearing as witnesses and supporting each other in numerous criminal cases. Taking this view the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
5. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accusued Babu Ram, father of the deceased and a prosecution witness, has filed these appeals after obtaining special leave. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the reasons given by the High Court for holding that there was delay in recording the FIR are not at all sustainable. He also submitted that the two main reasons given by the High Court for discarding the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
