2010 Supreme(SC) 213

2010 (2) Supreme 249
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
Dharamveer and Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2004
Decided on : 9-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Power under Article 136 of the Constitution is very wide and nothing prevents Apex Court to reappraise the evidence and set aside concurrent finding of fact holding the accused guilty. However, appreciation of evidence is resorted to, in exceptional circumstances when it comes to conclusion that finding of guilt recorded by High Court is perverse.
2. Case of prosecution can not be rejected merely on the ground that there was delay in despatch of the First Information Report.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 148 and 302/149, 307/149-Prosecution of appellant accused persons for causing death of two persons by gun shot injuries- Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal against conviction on plea that prosecution case was dependent upon evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and they being inimical to the appellants, their evidence deserved to be rejected- Held evidence of an eye witness can not be rejected only on the ground that enmity exists between the parties- True it was that R could have been an important witness to unfold the true story but his non-examination, itself was not sufficient to discard the case of prosecution- Evidence of two eye-witnesses, with minor contradictions here and there had withstood the test of cross-examination and therefore case of prosecution was not fit to be thrown out on those grounds-Again merely the fact that eyewitnesses did not suffer any injury, did not make their evidence untrustworthy-Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 15 to 20)

        Criminal Trial-Delay in despatch of FIR-Information in regard to the incident was given immediately after the occurrence and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 8.20 p.m. -The occurrence had taken place at about 4.00 p.m. on 10/10/1997 and therefore there did not seem any delay in lodging FIR- Not only this, after First Information Report was lodged, investigation proceeded, statement of witnesses recorded, inquest report prepared and dead bodies sent for post-mortem examination without delay- Evidence on record that Special Report was sent by post- In the background of facts, held that mere delay in receipt of Special Report, in no way causes doubt to case of prosecution-Apart from that , none of the witnesses including the investigating officer of the case had been cross-examined on this point- Hence held that case of prosecution could not be rejected merely on the ground that there was delay in despatch of the First Information Report. (Paras 13)

        Constitution of India,1950- Article 136 - Scope and ambit of-Power under Article 136 of the Constitution is very wide and nothing prevents Apex Court to reappraise the evidence and set aside concurrent finding of fact holding the accused guilty- However, appreciation of evidence is resorted to, in exceptional circumstances when it comes to conclusion that finding of guilt recorded by High Court is perverse, meaning thereby High Court had recorded the finding without consideration of relevant material or consideration of irrelevant material, the consideration or non-consideration whereof shall have bearing on the finding recorded- The finding can also be considered perverse, if a person duly instructed in law will not come to that finding- Apex Court may also interfere with the finding of fact when it finds violation of established procedure going to root of the case- Where the High Court has analysed the evidence in great detail and found evidence reliable there is no scope for interference by Apex Court. (Paras 9)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of two persons by gun shot injuries. Trial Court convicted accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present Appeal against conviction has been filed on plea that there was Delay in dispatch of FIR. Appellants further contended that prosecution case was dependent upon evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and they being inimical to the appellants, their evidence deserved to be rejected.

       Findings of the Court :

        It was held that Information in regard to the incident was given immediately after the occurrence and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 8.20 p.m. The occurrence had taken place at about 4.00 p.m. on 10/10/1997 and therefore there did not seem any delay in lodging FIR. Not only this, after First Information Report was lodged, investigation proceeded, statement of witnesses recorded, inquest report prepared and dead bodies sent for post-mortem examination without delay. Evidence on record showed that Special Report was sent by post. In the background of facts, held that mere delay in receipt of Special Report, in no way causes doubt to case of prosecution. Apart from that , none of the witnesses including the investigating officer of the case had been cross-examined on this point. Hence held that case of prosecution could not be rejected merely on the ground that there was delay in despatch of the First Information Report.

        Apart from that it was held that evidence of an eye witness can not be rejected only on the ground that enmity exists between the parties. True it was that R could have been an important witness to unfold the true story but his non-examination, itself was not sufficient to discard the case of prosecution. Evidence of two eye-witnesses, with minor contradictions here and there had withstood the test of cross-examination and therefore case of prosecution was not fit to be thrown out on those grounds. Again merely the fact that eyewitnesses did not suffer any injury, did not make their evidence untrustworthy. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.