2010 Supreme(SC) 1219

2010 (8) Supreme 546
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli KR. Prasad, JJ.
Sher Singh & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2009
with
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1294 of 2009, 182-183 of 2010 and 97-98 of 2010.
Decided on : 16-12-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where the deceased is husband and the eye witness is the wife it is but natural that she should be overwhelmed and completely distraught by the turn of events and if there is some delay in the recording of her statement that cannot be taken against the prosecution in any way.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 149-Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of deceased and injuries to his wife and son by assaulting them with means of kulhari, lathis , bankris and a jailli-Trial Court convicted accused persons A1 to A5 under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC-Appeal-High Court partly allowed appeal whereby conviction and sentence awarded under Section 302/149 was set aside and a conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 was substituted –Appeals thereagainst- Plans which were prepared almost contemporaneously to incident, proved the case of prosecution with regard to site of incident beyond any doubt- The observation of High Court, therefore, that there appeared to be some confusion about place of incident was completely misplaced.- Possibility that a large number of persons had been involved in the incident, could not be ruled out, as it would not have been possible for a few persons to have carried deceased to a distance 294 karams from point A to D-Hence held that circumstances indicated that all appellants were in fact participants in the murder- No evidence to suggest whatsoever or to create a doubt with regard to the involvement of either S or his son on the basis of alibi-A perusal of injuries and post-mortem report clearly revealed that intention of accused was evident and that was to cause death and merely because most of injuries were on the extremities would not be a reason to bring the case within Section 304 Part II of the IPC more particularly as the doctor had opined that they were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature-Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored in all respects-Appeals disposed off (Paras 10 to 15)

        Criminal Trial- Delay in lodging FIR-In a case where the deceased is husband and the eye witness is the wife it is but natural that she should be overwhelmed and completely distraught by the turn of events and if there is some delay in the recording of her statement that cannot be taken against the prosecution in any way. The delay in the lodging of the FIR, even presuming that there was indeed some delay, lost all significance, more particularly as both wife PW-2 and son PW-6 of deceased were injured (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased and injuries to his wife and son by assaulting them with means of kulhari, lathis , bankris and a jailli. Trial Court convicted accused persons A1 to A5 under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC.Appeal thereagainst was partly allowed by High Court whereby conviction and sentence awarded under Section 302/149 was set aside and a conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 was substituted.

        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Plans which were prepared almost contemporaneously to incident, proved the case of prosecution with regard to site of incident beyond any doubt. The observation of High Court, therefore, that there appeared to be some confusion about place of incident was completely misplaced. Possibility that a large number of persons had been involved in the incident, Could not be ruled out, as it would not have been possible for a few persons to have carried deceased to a distance 294 karams from point A to D.Hence held that circumstances indicated that all appellants were in fact participants in the murder. There was No evidence to suggest whatsoever or to create a doubt with regard to the involvement of either S or his son on the basis of alibi.A perusal of injuries and post-mortem report clearly revealed that intention of accused was evident and that was to cause death and merely because most of injuries were on the extremities would not be a reason to bring the case within Section 304 Part II of the IPC more particularly as the doctor had opined that they were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of trial court was restored in all respects. Appeals were disposed of

       Result : Appeals disposed of