2010 Supreme(SC) 505

2010 (5) Supreme 153
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Chunni Lal — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2006
Decided on : 5-7-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the Victim.
2.Delay in lodging FIR by itself is not sufficient to discard the prosecution version unless it is unexplained.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302-Prosecution of appellant for causing death of his uncle by firing two rounds of bullets from DBBL gun of deceased in presence of PW-1 and PW-2-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal –Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court-Appeal-Evidence on record that PWs 1 & 2 were born out of relationship between deceased and their mother who earlier was kept as a mistress or concubine by deceased for about 25-26 years-About three months prior to incident deceased performed marriage with said lady and a document was executed in that regard before the Marriage Officer-On having found that his chance of inheriting estate of deceased was practically lost due to said marriage, accused thought of taking revenge on his uncle for depriving him of his right to inherit his estate and therefore caused his death-Thus reason and motive for crime was clearly established- Both PWs 1 & 2 have given a vivid account of incident and the manner in which incident had occurred- Accused used the weapon of the deceased himself for firing upon him-Two bullets were fired which resulted in two injuries which were established from the medical evidence available on record-Ocular evidence, fully corroborated medical evidence-Since there was well reasoned and proper explanation for the delay both in lodging of the FIR as also in starting of the investigation by Investigating Officer-Hence held that delay which was caused due to reasonable factual situation could not destroy prosecution case nor created any suspicion with regard to the prosecution case-The fact that accused ran away from place of occurrence and was not traceable thereafter in the village and the fact that he surrendered only after thirteen days clearly indicated that appellant was guilty of offence alleged against him-Held Appellant accused had been rightly convicted of offence under Section 302 IPC- Appeal, having no merit dismissed. (Paras 8, 14 to 21)

       Facts of the Case :

       Appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted for causing death of his uncle by firing two rounds of bullets from DBBL gun of deceased in presence of PW-1 and PW-2. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence .Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence on record proved that PWs 1 & 2 were born out of relationship between deceased and their mother who earlier was kept as a mistress or concubine by deceased for about 25-26 years. About three months prior to incident deceased performed marriage with said lady and a document was executed in that regard before the Marriage Officer. On having found that his chance of inheriting estate of deceased was practically lost due to said marriage, accused thought of taking revenge on his uncle for depriving him of his right to inherit his estate and therefore caused his death. Thus reason and motive for crime was clearly established. Both PWs 1 & 2 had given a vivid account of incident and the manner in which incident had occurred. Accused used the weapon of the deceased himself for firing upon him. Two bullets were fired which resulted in two injuries which were established from the medical evidence available on record. Ocular evidence, fully corroborated medical evidence. Since there was well reasoned and proper explanation for the delay both in lodging of the FIR as also in starting of the investigation by Investigating Officer. Hence held that delay which was caused due to reasonable factual situation could not destroy prosecution case nor created any suspicion with regard to the prosecution case. The fact that accused ran away from place of occurrence and was not traceable thereafter in the village and the fact that he surrendered only after thirteen days clearly indicated that appellant was guilty of offence alleged against him. Hence Held Appellant accused had been rightly convicted of offence under Section 302 IPC. Appeal, having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.