2010 (6) Supreme 475
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Assam — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2007
Decided on : 15-9-2010
(2002) 6 SCC 596; (2002) 8 SCC 426; (2003) 3 SCC 106; (2003) 12 SCC 377; (2005) 6 SCC 211; AIR 1971 SC 722 – Relied upon
1995 Supp. (3) SCC 521; 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 521; (1995) 1 SCC 178; (2003) 9 SCC 464; AIR 1953 SC 468 – Impliedly distinguished
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Normally FIR loses its authenticity if it is lodged after the inquest report is recorded, but it cannot be applied universally in all circumstances. (Paras 16)
(1975) 4 SCC 511; (2007) 13 SCC 501 – Distinguished
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 174 – Proceedings u/s 174 have limited scope – Inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence. (Paras 17 and 18)
AIR 1975 SC 1252; AIR 1998 SC 1376; AIR 2000 SC 2207 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 157 – If a police officer on receiving information of an offence does not send a report to the Magistrate, that does not mean that his proceedings to the spot, is not for investigation. (Para 20)
(1976) SCC 644 – Relied upon
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Though ordinarily investigation is undertaken on information received by a police officer, the receipt of information is not a condition precedent for investigation – Information regarding a cognizable offence furnished to the police will be regarded as FIR – All enquiries held by the police subsequent thereto would be treated as investigation, even though the formal registration of the FIR takes place only later. (Paras 22 and 23)
AIR 1964 SC 221 – Relied upon
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J. —
1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2005, dated 26.04.2006, whereby and where under, the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Sessions Case No.2 of 2002. The appellants are convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for six months each.
2) The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.06.1997 at about 5.00 P.M. the deceased Fanilal Das was returning home on a rickshaw driven by Manilal Das (PW2). The deceased stopped the rickshaw near Shiva temple and after offering his prayer, he came back to the rickshaw and at that point of time, the appellants and others assaulted the deceased and, thereafter, forcibly took him to the house of Kunja Mohan where he was assaulted by all the accused persons. It is their further case, that, one Upendra Das informed the wife of the deceased about the assault on her husband by the appellants and on hearing the same, she came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased, and on being informed by PW-3, police came to the place of incident and took the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead. After completing the investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted. Initially, four accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge, Hailkandi for commission of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. During the trial, four other persons were also arrayed as accused and tried along with the appellants. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. After completion of the trial, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the appellants completely denied their involvement in the alleged offence. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and two others for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced as stated earlier. This order of the Sessions Court is confirmed by the Gauhati High Court by rejecting the criminal appeals filed by the accused persons.
3) This appeal is filed only by Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das (Accused No. 4) and Bibhu Das @ Sekhar Das (Accused No. 5).
4) While assailing the judgment and order of the High Court, it is contended by Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel, that admittedly, the Inquest Report was recorded by the Investigating Officer at 9.30 PM and the FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased at 11.30 PM on 07.06.1997. Therefore, it is contended that the First Information Report loses all authenticity if written after Inquest Report. In aid of his submission, reliance is placed on the observation made by this court in the case of Balaka Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab,1 [1975(4) SCC 511] and Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra,2 [2007(13) SCC 501]. It is further contended that the High Court has failed to address itself to certain crucial aspects of evidence and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on general observations and more so, in a very casual and cavalier manner which is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed on the observation made by this court in the case of Badri vs. State of Rajasthan,3 [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 521], Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni vs. State of Gujarat,4 [1995 (1) SCC 178] and Lal Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,5 [2003 (9) SCC 464]. It is further contended that the High Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the accused has put forward a reasonable defence throughout the trial and as well as in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. While elaborating this contention, it is stated that prior to the occurrence, the complainant’s husband and her husband’s younger brother Chunnulal Das had got involved in the case regarding the murder of their brother Arun Das and for that reason
Maha Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
Dhananjay Shanker Shetty v. State of Maharashtra
Ravinder Parkash v. State of Haryana
Bharat v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Lal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mousam Singha Roy v. State of West Bengal
Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat
State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore
Basudev Hazra v. Matiar Rahaman Mandal
Podda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Balaka Singh v. The State of Punjab
Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni v. State of Gujarat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.