2007 Supreme(SC) 1355

2007(7) Supreme 233
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 844-846 of 2005
Criminal Appeal nos. 837, 843 and 847 of 2005
Decided on : 12-10-2007

important point
Registering FIR after preparation of detailed inquest report has been deprecated on many occasions.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR can be lodged by anybody but it should not be too sketchy so as to make initiation of investigation on the basis thereof impossible – When, however, the FIR is lodged by a person who claims to be aware of not only the commission of the offence, the name of the deceased and at least one of the accused who had committed the same, the FIR could have been recorded on the basis thereof.(Para 11)

       (2003) 1 SCC 648; (2002) 9 SCC 183 – Relied upon

       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Registering FIR after preparation of detailed inquest report has been deprecated by Supreme Court on many occasions – Time of recoding the FIR also warrants serious consideration as to whether it is ante-timed – Where the parties are at loggerheads and there had been instances which resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of a First Information Report is always considered to be vital. (Para 15)

       (c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 157 – Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the First Information Report should be sent to the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours – In the present case it was done after four days without any explanation for delay.(Para 16)

       2006 (8) SCALE 433; (2001) 3 SCC 147 – Relied upon.

       (d)Criminal Trial – PWs 11 and 12 held to be not reliable – Conviction based on their evidence would be hazardous.(Para 24)

       Facts of the case:

       Shivaji Patil, brother of the complainant Sarjerao Patil (PW-13) and one Baburao Patil were residents of Phulewadi situate in the District Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra.

        There were two groups in the village; one belonging to Sarjerao Patil and the other known as Mahipati Shankarrao Bondre (Accused No. 4) group. Brother of the Accused No. 4 was an M.L.A. He was also a former Minister. In a municipal election which took place between the first informant and one Nagoji Patil, Sarjerao Patil was elected. Bitterness between the two groups came to such a pass that the brother of one Bindu More (Accused No. 9) was murdered. Accused No. 4 Mahipati Shankarrao Bondre was the first informant in that case. There was bad blood between the two groups. In the murder case of the brother of Accused No. 9, the deceased Shivaji was granted bail. The accused allegedly intended to take revenge thereof.

        At about 10 O’clock on 21.10.1993, PW-11 Subhash Pandurang Kalke was taking his cart to bring grass from the land of one Rajaram Patil. On his way, he met his friend PW-12 Sanjay Laxman Belgaonkar. PW-11 asked PW-12 to accompany him. He promised to come later as he was to deliver medicine at his house.

        While PW-11 was coming back after loading the grass in his cart, at or near the place of occurrence, Shivaji Patil and Baburao Patil who were coming on a motorcycle overtook him. Accused persons, who were 11 in number, had allegedly been waiting for them. They were accosted by the accused persons. The accused persons formed a threatening semi-circle around them. Accused No. 9 Bindu More exhorted others to assault but he himself inflicted vital injuries upon Shivaji Patil. Baburao Patil intervened.

       He was also threatened. He started running away from the scene of occurrence. He was chased. PWs 11 and 12 seeing them chasing Baburao hid themselves nearby in a sugarcane field. Baburao Patil was found murdered in front of the house of Sou Padma (PW-14). Babasaheb, brother of the deceased (PW-9) Shivaji Patil who was also coming back from his village along with others found his brother murdered. PW-11 informed him about the details of the incident. He came to his house and informed his sister-in-law. She in turn asked PW-10 Sadashiva to go to the Corporation Office and inform about the incident to the first informant PW-13. PW-13 reached the police station at about 12.30 p.m. He allegedly did not furnish the details of the incident. He only named Accused No. 9. He disclosed to PW-16 Vijay that murders of Shivaji Patil and Baburao Patil have been committed.

        The First Information Report was lodged at about 2.15 p.m. in which nine persons were named as accused. The learned Sessions Judge passed a judgment of conviction against Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 and acquitted Accused Nos. 4, 8 and 10. Appeals were preferred thereagainst by the appellants. A revision application was also filed by Sarjerao Patil against the judgment and order questioning acquittal of Accused Nos. 4, 8 and 10.

        Six criminal appeals were filed before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants.

       Findings of the Court:

       Evidence of PWs 11 and 12 are not reliable, hence conviction cannot be based thereupon.

       Result : Appeals allowed.