Important points
It is now well settled that FIR need not be encyclopedic.
Non recovery of incriminating material from accused cannot be a ground to exonerate them of charges when eye witnesses examined by prosecution were found to be trustworthy.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302\149, 323\149 and 148 – Prosecution of accused persons eighteen in number for causing death of two persons and injuries to one person by firing gun shots and by assaulting them by lathis and tachia – Motive for commission of said offence was land dispute between parties – Trial Court while acquitting eight accused persons convicted rest of accused persons – Appeal - High Court acquitted one other accused person while convicting rest – Appeal there against - Concurrent finding of fact of courts below that there was sufficient light for identification of accused – FIR was lodged within a short time – Evidences of three eyewitnesses Pw1, pw4 and Pw8 were almost identical – Some minor contradiction in evidences of said witnesses was not such which would discredit their testimonies in their entirety - Oral testimonies of said eye witnesses got corroborated by medical evidence – No dispute regarding homicidal death of two deceased persons and injuries suffered by injured witness – Non disclosure of fact in FIR that PW1 was lying unconscious not fatal as it was a fact and was found to be correct – It is now well settled that FIR need not be encyclopedic – No force in contention of appellants that weapons of offences were not recovered – Non recovery of incriminating material from accused cannot be a ground to exonerate them of charges when eye witnesses examined by prosecution were found to be trustworthy - In view of fact that one of accused person “D” had been given benefit of doubt, and as case of “J” stood on the same footing, he was also held entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction of other accused persons held not liable to be interfered with. (Paras 24 to 34, 36 to 39)
       Facts of the case :
       Accused persons eighteen in number herein in the instant case was prosecuted for causing death of two persons and injuries to one person by firing gun shots and by assaulting them by lathis and tachia. As per prosecution case Motive for commission of said offence was land dispute between parties. Trial Court while acquitting eight accused persons convicted rest of accused persons. High Court on appeal acquitted one other accused person while convicting rest of Accused persons.
       Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that Concurrent finding of fact of courts below were that there was sufficient light for identification of accused. FIR was lodged within a short time. Evidences of three eyewitnesses Pw1, pw4 and Pw8 were almost identical. Some minor contradiction in evidences of said witnesses was not such which would discredit their testimonies in their entirety. Oral testimonies of said eye witnesses got corroborated by medical evidence. There was no dispute regarding homicidal death of two deceased persons and injuries suffered by injured witness. Non disclosure of fact in FIR that PW1 was lying unconscious was not fatal to prosecution case as it was a fact and was found to be correct. It is now well settled that FIR need not be encyclopedic. There was no force in contention of appellants that weapons of offences were not recovered. Non recovery of incriminating material from accused cannot be a ground to exonerate them of charges when eye witnesses examined by prosecution were found to be trustworthy. In view of fact that one of accused person “D” had been given benefit of doubt, and as case of “J” stood on the same footing, he was also held entitled to benefit of doubt. Conviction of other accused persons however held not liable to be interfered with.
       Result : Ordered accordingly.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.—

1.Appellants were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302/149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, for committing murder of Jharmal and Juhru and also causing hurt to Mubin on 26th October, 1991 at about 1.00 a.m.

2.The First Information Report in relation to the said incident was lodged at about 7.00 a.m. on the same day by Kannu son of Chhote Khan (brother of the deceased Jharmal and Jharu). The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is said to be about six kilometers. The first informant had to walk to the police station for the purpose of lodging the First Information Report.

3.In the said First Information Report, it was alleged that when at about 1.00 a.m. on the previous night the deceased and injured were thrashing bazra, they were attacked by 12 persons, namely, Mohd. Ishaq, Sahid, Abdul Salam, Umar Mohd., Narangi, Liyakat Ali, Gernal, Jamalu, Alladdin, Rustam, Jamil, Mewan and Bilag. It was furthermore alleged that Sahid and Gernal were carrying 12 Bore guns, Mohd. Ishaq Abdul and the rest of the accused were having lathis.

4.On exhortation given by Mohd. Ishaq ordering to shoot down Jharmal and his two brothers, Sahid and Gernal allegedly fired shots from their guns.

5.The informant ran away from the said place and climbed on a nearby hill. He cried for help. Jharmal and Mubin also cried for help. They ran towards a well situated nearby. Accused killed Jharmal and Juhru by hitting them on their heads with lathis and Tachia (a weapon like Farsa). Mubin was also assaulted on his head and other parts of the body. Presuming all the three brothers to be dead the accused ran away. Allegedly the wooden portion of the gun of Sahid fell down at the place of occurrence.

6.The motive for commission of the said offence is said to be that Majid had some dispute in respect of a house with Jharmal.

7.It was also alleged that the accused persons took away a sum of Rs.1950/- from the pocket of the ‘kurta’, Juhru had then been putting on.

8.The learned Sessions Judge, while holding the appellants guilty of commission of the said offences, acquitted Majid, Umrao, Akhe Singh, Nooru, Kehar, Risal from the charge of conspiracy to murder the deceased. Sahid Ahmad, Daud Khan, Mohd. Ishaq, Abdul Salam, Narangi, Namalu, Umar Mohd., Rustam, Alladin and Jamil were also acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 307 and 307/149 IPC. The learned Trial Judge also acquitted Liyaqat from the charges levelled against him.

9.Charges were found to have been proved against Sahid Ahmad, Dau Khan, Mohd. Ishaq, Abdul Salam, Narangi, Jamalu, Umar Mohd., Rustam, Alladin and Jamil under Sections 148, 323/149, 302/149 IPC. Charges under Section 147 were also found to have been proved against Narangi, Jamalu, Umar Mohd., Rustam, Alladin and Jamil. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC; one month’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC as also a fine of Rs.200/-. Narangi, Jamalu, Umar Mohd. Rustam, Alladeen and Jameel were also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of an offence under Section 148 IPC.

10.On appeals having been preferred by the accused, the High Court, while dismissing the appeals of Narangi, Jamalu, Umar Mohd. Rustam, Alladeen and Jamil, Sahid, Mohd., Ishaq and Abdul Salam, allowed the one preferred by Daud Khan.

11.Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of this appeal, inter alia, would submit that all the prosecution witnesses upon whom reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, being interested witnesses, the judgment of sentence and conviction are not sustainable.

12.It was pointed out that the prosecution case being based on the alleged motive in regard to land dispute by and between Maj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1591

2008(8) Supreme 573Supreme Court of indiaS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.Umar Mohammad & Ors. — PetitionersversusState of Rajasthan — RespondentAppeal (crl.) 382-386 of 2004WithCriminal Appeal No. 387 of 2004Decided on : 12-12-2007

Important pointsIt is now well settled that FIR need not be encyclopedic.Non recovery of incriminating material from accused cannot be a ground to exonerate them of charges when eye witnesses examined by prosecution were found to be trustworthy.

Cases Referred (1)

2008(8) Supreme 573
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Umar Mohammad & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 382-386 of 2004
With
Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2004
Decided on : 12-12-2007

Important points
It is now well settled that FIR need not be encyclopedic.
Non recovery of incriminating material from accused cannot be a ground to exonerate them of charges when eye witnesses examined by prosecution were found to be trustworthy.