Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 1557

JT 2008 (12) SC 309
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKEH & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus.
Avtar Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2003 [From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 328-08/1995]
Decided on : 21.10.2008

Advocate Appearances
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. TP. Mishra and Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma Advocate for the Respondent.

The court emphasized that the delay in lodging the FIR, delay in dispatching the report, and variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence can lead to the failure of the prosecution to establish the accusations.

Headnote:
Delay in Lodging FIR - Acquittal based on lack of credible evidence and medical variance
Fact of the Case:

The appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which directed acquittal of the accused persons previously found guilty of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court concluded that the delay in lodging the first information report, delay in sending the report to the Elaka Magistrate, lack of credible and cogent eyewitness evidence, and variance between medical evidence and ocular version rendered the prosecution vulnerable, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in lodging the FIR, delay in dispatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate, credibility of eyewitness evidence, and variance between medical evidence and ocular version.
Ratio Decidendi: The combined effect of the delay in lodging the FIR, delay in dispatching the report, and variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence led the court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to establish the accusations.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent based on the factors mentioned.

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge is this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana d1recting acquittal of the respondent. Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 1995 and Criminal No. 328-DB of 1995. Both the appeals were directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). The two appellants in the two connected appeals faced trial along with one Bant Singh who was acquitted by the trial Court. Detailed reference to the factual position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High Court in the two appeals.

2. Firstly it was submitted that there was considerable delay in lodging the first information report and secondly there was considerable unexplained delay in sending the report to the Elaka Magistrate. It was concluded by the High Court that these factors apart from the fact that evidence of the so called eye-witness was not credible and cogent and also the medical evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution version vulnerable.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the factors which have weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be-maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.

4. Though it cannot be laid as a rule of universal application that when ever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in dispatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate and/or the medical evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence, the prosecution has to fail. In the instant case the combined effect of the three factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not consider that to be a fit case where any interference is called for.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document