1995 Supreme(SC) 1017

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Baldev Singh & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1985
Decided on 13-10-1995
Counsel for the Parties:
Mr. M.S. Gujral Singh, Sr. and Mr. P.P.Singh, Adv. with him for the Appellants.
Ms. Amita Gupta, Adv. for Mr. R.S. Suri, Adv. for the Respondent.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299, 302 and 304 Part I - Convictions u/s 302/34 and 302 - Appeal - Eye witness being widow of deceased - No discrepancy between FIR and deposition of widow in court- FIR given within two hours of incident - FIR, statement of A, evidence of PW 5 and medical evidence reveal that court was justified in holding that accused Nos. 1 and 3 caused injuries to deceased No.1 which resulted in his death - Accused No.1 alone caused injuries to A, deceased No.2 resulting in his death. (Para 12)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299 and 304 Part - Accused and deceased are near relations (father and sons) - Feud in family regarding entitlement to property - Accused had arms (kirpan, barchhas) but only inflicted wounds in thigh and back - Medical evidence negatives any wound as having been sustained by deceased B by pistol- Arms possessed being not inherently dangerous - No inference can be drawn that intention of accused was to cause death - No evidence or finding as to who caused fatal injuries - A, deceased No.2 died nearly 8 days after incident on account of cumulative effect of injuries - Incident happened 11 years ago - Offence falls u/s 299 r/w 30.4, Part I Sentence of imprisonment already undergone Appellants to pay by way of compensation a sum of Rs. 35,000/- each to PW 5 and her children. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357).

       Held: The medical evidence negatives any wound as having been sustained by deceased Balbir Singh, by pistol. The arms possessed by the accused are not inherently dangerous to infer that the intention of the accused was to cause death or that the accused had know ledge that inflicting the injuries as was done, death was likely to be caused. There is no evidence or finding as to who caused the fatal injuries which resulted in the death of Balbir Singh. The appellants-accused inflicted injuries only on the thigh and at the back. The incident happened nearly 11 years ago (4-5-1984). The injuries inflicted on the thigh of Amrik Singh by Baldev Singh have not been proved to be serious or fatal and Amrik Singh died nearly 8 days after the incident on account of cumulative effect of the injuries. The passage of time should have its impact in taking an over all view of the matter. The appellants have served the sentence of imprisonment for more than two year till they were allowed bail by this Court by order dated 17-11-1987. Balbir Singh is an unfortunate-victim. The property dispute between the father and son has led to the unfortunate incident. PW-5, widow and children of Balbir Singh, are the persons to suffer and they should not be heirs are not benefited. Considering the nature of the crime, the fact that the accused and the victim are near relations, that it is a property issue which ended in the calamity, the fact that the accused are admittedly in a position to pay, we are of the view that this is a fit case, in which section 357(3) Cr. P.C. can be invoked and a just and reasonable compensation given to the family of Balbir Singh - (PW-5 and children). In the circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 299 read with section 304, Part I, IPC. (Para 16)

       (iii) Evidence - First Information Report Not a substantive piece of evidence - It is only relevant in judging veracity of prosecution case - Value to be attached to it depends on facts of each case - Only broad picture need be stated in FIR.

       Held: The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case and the value to be attached to it depends on the fact of each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of the occurrence as if it were an "encyclopedia" of the occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the overt act acts therein. Non-mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal. We should also bear in mind that the FIR was given by PW-5, who is an illiterate lady soon after the occurrence, when she should have been very emotional and in a disturbed state of mind. We find that the evidence of PW -5 is substantially in accord with Ex. P-7, FIR and the court below was justified in placing reliance on Ex. P-7 and the evidence of PW-5. (Para 10)