1. Murder by firearm — Ambush — Conviction by trial court — Acquittal by High Court — Appeal by State under Section 302 IPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1719
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Raghuvir & Anr. Etc. Etc. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2175-2177 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 349-351 of 2015)
Decided On : 13-12-2017
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ratnakar Das, Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra
For thee Respondents: Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mr. AtulAgarwal, Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Ms. Divya Garg, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Mr. Rahul Poonia, Mr. Alok Mohan, Mr. Sonal Jain
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ratnakar Das, Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra
For thee Respondents: Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Mr. AtulAgarwal, Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, Ms. Divya Garg, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Mr. Rahul Poonia, Mr. Alok Mohan, Mr. Sonal Jain
The delay in lodging an FIR should be carefully scrutinized based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the misdirection in appreciating evidence can lead to a reversal of judgment.
Headnote:
Delay in FIR Lodging - Criminal Appeal - Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 120B IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC by the High Court due to delay in lodging the FIR and doubts raised on the credibility of the eye witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by heavy rain and fear of the accused, and the High Court had misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence and reasonings for acquittal.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the eye witnesses, the delay in FIR lodging, and the interpretation of the evidence and circumstances by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in FIR lodging was explained and should not have been the sole ground for acquittal. The court also emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the misdirection of the High Court in appreciating the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal pertaining to accused Prem Yadav was allowed, confirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appeals pertaining to other accused were dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State challenges acquittal; High Court relied on unexplained FIR delay, witness inconsistencies, and omission of ballistic evidence in Section 313 CrPC statements. (Para 2 , 7 , 13 , 15 )
3. Eye witness testimony is credible; ballistic evidence is corroborative; FIR delay was satisfactorily explained; trivial discrepancies do not invalidate the prosecution case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Omission to put a circumstance under Section 313 CrPC is not fatal unless it causes a miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused. (Para 12 )
5. Conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC restored for one accused; acquittals for other accused upheld. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
No. While delay is viewed with suspicion due to the possibility of concoction, its impact depends on the facts. If the prosecution provides a satisfactory explanation, such as heavy rain or fear of the accused, the court may accept it. (Para 15 )
7. What is the legal effect of failing to put a specific incriminating circumstance to the accused during their statement under Section 313 CrPC?
Generally, if a circumstance is not put to the accused, it should be excluded from consideration. However, this is subject to whether the omission caused a miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused. (Para 12 )
8. Can the testimony of witnesses related to the deceased be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship?
No. It is natural for related witnesses to accompany the deceased. If the trial court finds their demeanor trustworthy and their identification of the accused credible, the relationship alone does not invalidate the testimony. (Para 10 )
9. Do minor inconsistencies between eye witness testimony and medical evidence justify an acquittal?
No. Trivial discrepancies, such as witnesses stating more shots were fired than injuries found on the body, do not necessarily affect witness credibility or the prosecution case, as some shots may have missed the target. (Para 13 , 14 )
ORDER :
R. Banumathi, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals preferred by the State of U.P. challenges the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.745 of 2009, 841 of 2009 and 891 of 2009 acquitting the respondents under Section 302 IPC by setting aside their conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2003, informant Bharat Singh along with his son Lallu Singh, Shivpati wife of Lallu Singh, Dheerendra Singh (PW-1), Monu (PW-2) and Meenu were returning home after working in their fields at 09.00 P.M. At about 09.00 P.M., when they reached near huts constructed near the field of Hanuman alias Mana, then in ambush Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir, Mehngu and Prem Yadav, extended exhortation and fired at Lallu Singh with country-made pistol and guns. Lallu Singh died on the spot and all the accused persons ran away towards the village.
4. The incident is stated to be the result of an enmity culminating into hatching of conspiracy by the accused due to a Marpit taken place three days prior to the incident between Sriram Gupta and Shiv Charan on one side and the deceased on the other wherein they had threatened the deceased to kill. On account of heavy rain during night and due to fear of the accused, the incident was not reported on the same night.
5. Bharat Singh lodged complaint (Ex.A1) on the next day i.e. on 31.07.2003 at 10.00 a.m., based on which FIR No.103 of 2003 (Ex.A3) was registered under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 120B IPC on 17.10.2003 against the accused Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir, Mehngu and Prem Yadav with two others Shiv Charan and Ram Gupta.
6. The trial court examined seven prosecution witnesses including two eye witnesses Dheerendra Singh (PW-1) and Monu (PW-2), PW-3-SI Dharampal Singh, PW-4-Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava who conducted post mortem (Ex. A4) and PWs 4 to 7 who were other witnesses and investigating officer. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court held that evidence of eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 is credible and trustworthy. Based upon the evidence of eye witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, the trial court held that gun was recovered from the possession of accused Prem Yadav and as per the ballistic report, the gun recovered from the possession of accused Prem Yadav tallied with the empty cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence and on those findings, the trial court convicted all the four accused persons under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on each of them with default clause.
7. Aggrieved by the conviction, the respondents/accused filed criminal appeal before the High Court. The High Court set aside the conviction and held that the delay in lodging FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. The High Court held that the evidence and incriminating circumstances are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty and reversed the judgment of the trial court and acquitted all the accused. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred these appeals.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.
9. Dheerendra Singh (PW-1) and Monu (PW-2) have consistently stated that on 30.07.2003, after working in the field, they were returning to their houses at around 09.00 P.M. along with Lallu Singh and Shivpati wife of Lallu Singh. They further stated that when they reached the huts constructed near the field of Hanuman alias Mana, accused Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir, Mehngu and Prem Yadav in ambush came and hurled abuses on Lallu Singh. The first shot fired by Prem Yadav and thereafter, all the other three accused also fired. On seeing the people coming near them, the accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. The motive for the crime is stated to be an occurrence about 2-3 days prior
