IMPORTANT POINT
There is no reason for Apex Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Trial Court and High Court against the accused holding them guilty for which they have been convicted and sentenced.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120B, 452 and 302-Arms Act-Section 25(1)(b)-Offence of murder by criminal conspiracy-Two Courts concurrently found that Rajesh (A1), Sachin (A2) and Duniya (A3) were the murderer in pursuance of criminal conspiracy of Girish Nambar-Motive of crime being enmity in love affair of Namrata (sister of accused) and Montu (nephew of deceased)-Incident seen by PW1 (nephew of deceased) and PW12 (cook of deceased)-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Contentions that PW1 and PW12 were not present at spot-FIR has been anti-timed to plant them -Non-mention of FIR No. and names of witnesses in the inquest panchnama (Exp. 37) proves that fact-Non-production of finger prints from place of occurrence is fatal to prosecution s case-Doubt about place of occurrence due to blood stains inside house-Whether these contentions are correct? (No) (see paras 9 to 15)-Result-Appeals dismissed.
       Both the trial court as well as the High Court have found on facts that the First Information Report was lodged without delay and its copy despatched to the Magistrate. The delay of receipt of the copy of the FIR by the magistrate, if any, was held to have been properly accounted for by the prosecution. Abdul Rehman (PW14) who is the investigating officer had stated that after registration of the case a report under Section 157 Cr.P.C. was also sent. The circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence show that the occurrence had taken place at about 1.15 p.m., the information of the scuffle was received by the police at 2.10 p.m., Smt. Umaben (PW 10) reached on the spot at 2.30 p.m. and Rakesh (PW 1) sent to the police station for recording the FIR at 2.40 p.m. The Inquest (Exh.P-37) was prepared between 3.00 - 3.45 p.m. and Inquest (Exh.P-32) between 4 to 6 p.m. The events of circumstances narrated by the witnesses do not leave any doubt in our mind to hold that the occurrence had actually taken place at about 1.15 p.m. in consequence of which Girish Namdar died and the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Rakesh (PW1) at. 2.40 p.m. in Police Station Vatva. (Para 12)
       Mere omission to mention the number of the FIR and the name of the complainant in Exh.P-37 has not persuaded us to hold that the FIR was ante-timed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as noticed by the trial court, the High Court and by us hereinabove. (Para 13).
       Held : After going through the whole of the evidence, the other record produced in the case and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court we find no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact arrived at against the accused holding them guilty for which they have been convicted and sentenced. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (Paras 16 & 17)

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-Fairly conceding that in a criminal case while hearing an appeal by special leave this Court cannot ordinarily embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence, in view of concurrent findings Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has contended that without appreciating afresh their testimony, the statements of Rakesh Pravinchandra Kinarivala (PW1) and Satish (PW12), the alleged eye-witnesses cannot be accepted as their presence on spot is highly improbable. In support of his contention he has referred to circumstances which allegedly show that the FIR had been ante-timed only for the purposes of planting the aforesaid witnesses as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Non-mention of the FIR number and the name of the witnesses in the inquest panchanama (Exh.37) has been cited as an instance to probabilise that the aforesaid witnesses were introduced later. Learned counsel has further submitted that as despite taking finger prints from the place of occurrence and sending it to the expert for his opinion, the prosecution did not produce the opinion of the expert in the court, which amounted to withholding of evidence, the courts should have drawn an inference against the prosecution. It is submitted that the well settled position of law is that where suppression of evidence is proved, a presumption of law has to be drawn that if such an evidence was actually produced, the same would have gone against the party withholding it. Presence of blood at various places inside the house of the deceased is suggested to be a strong ground to hold that occurrence had not taken place outside the house as deposed by eye-witnesses but the deceased was killed inside the house by some miscreants. The appellants are alleged to have been implicated merely on suspicion and convicted completely ignoring the submissions made on their behalf.

2. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to have a resume of the facts of the case leading to the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Montu a young lad, nephew of deceased Girish Namdar, had allegedly abducted damsel Namrata, daughter of Mukesh Chandulal Gandhi and sister of Accused Sachin (A2) and Accused Duniya (A3). According to the prosecution, seeds of enmity between the families of complainant and the accused-party had been sown on account of love affair between Namrata and Montu. The enmity thus conceived is stated to be the motive for the ghastly and macabre killing of Girish Namdar.

3. On 7.2.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. Girish Namdar @ Girish Ambalal Gandhi is stated to have come to his farm known as Namdar Farm which is situated near Vatva Village about 10-15 kilometers from the metropolitan city of Ahmedabad. The accused are stated to have hatched a conspiracy, in furtherance of which they committed the crime. The accused persons came at the farm in a Maruti Fronti Model car. On hearing the blow of horn, the deceased called the visitors inside his house through his Cook Satish (PW12). Rajesh (A1) and Duniya (A3) came inside the house whereas Sachin (A2) remained in the car. Accused Rajesh and Duniya initiated the talk about the proposed marriage of Montu with Namrata. The issue was hotly debated but as the deceased allegedly did not agree to the proposal, A1 and A3 got enraged and agitated. When A-1 started to leave the house, the deceased persuaded him to sit by catching hold of him and offered him wine but A1 refused to oblige him. As A1 went out, the deceased also came out of his house to see him off near the sitting portion in front of the house. Again there was some talk between the deceased and A1 about Namrata. A-1 felt that the deceased was the only obstruction and impediment between the relationship of Namrata and Montu. The deceased consoled him that some conciliation and settlement shall be reached by calling the fathers of the two lovers. It is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 called the dece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 335

IMPORTANT POINTThere is no reason for Apex Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Trial Court and High Court against the accused holding them guilty for which they have been convicted and sentenced.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no reason for Apex Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Trial Court and High Court against the accused holding them guilty for which they have been convicted and sentenced.