Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 978
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Kali Prasad Singh Etc. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1460-1461 of 2010
Decided on : 28-03-2019
For the Appellant(s) :K.T.S. Tulsi, Udaya K. Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Pallavi Malhotra, Vasudha Singh, Ravindra Gera, Krittika Ahluwalia, Ravi, Swati Bhardwaj, Lawyer S Knit & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Garvesh Kabra, Abhishek Chaudhary, Dinesh Kr. Tiwary, U.S. Aggarwal, Jaya Kumari, Shama Sharma, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
When corrections in the FIR are also seen on its carbon copy, it cannot be said to be ante timed.
Corroborated evidence cannot be disbelieved.
Headnote:
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 - FIR - Ante timing - Correction made in time while reducing the statement of complainant in writing - Correction occurring in carbon copy also - Incident at 10 pm - 22.05 hrs corrected to 23.05 hrs on the same date - No scope of ante timing in two hours - FIR cannot be said to ante timed. (Para 14)
(b) Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Evidence of complainant - Corroborated by other witnesses - Cannot be disbelieved. (Para 15, 16)
(c) Criminal trial - Intimation to Magistrate - FIR registered at 23.05 hrs on 18.2.2000 - Intimation sent on 19.2.2000 by post - Received on 21.2.2000 - No undue delay in sending intimation. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Accused-appellants were convicted u/s 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine.
The conviction and the sentence was affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appeals are preferred by the accused-appellants against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court vide judgment and order(s) dated 09.10.2009 for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC.
3. Short facts of the case are that the first informant- Rajendra Singh, resident of Baijnath, Police Station Ramgarh, District Bhabhua, Bihar was preparing for civil services at Allahabad and his brothers Surendra Singh and Abhinav Rathore were residing at Varanasi. A week prior to the incident, the first informant had come to Varanasi from Allahabad. His younger brother Surendra Singh-deceased was working with Topkan Opticals Rathyatra. On 18.02.2000 at about 9 p.m., when his brother did not return from work place, Rajendra Singh went to look for him towards Mahavir temple. At about 9.30 p.m. Surendra Singh met him near Mahavir temple and they started walking towards their house. The deceased was walking 5-6 paces behind the complainant along with his bicycle. At about 10 p.m., near the house of Pramod Dubey, the accused- Kali Prasad @ Paintol and Santosh Kumar Singh, armed with country made pistol, came from the side lane, caught hold of his brother-Surendra Singh and fired at his neck and temple (Kanpati). Hearing the shrieks of the complainant, constable Nepal Singh (PW-3) who also resided in the same locality came out of house and challenged the accused, who ran away. Surendra Singh died instantaneously. A number of close by residents arrived at the scene. The complainant was able to recognize the accused in the light of electric bulb. Ram Narayan was alleged to be the master-mind behind the occurrence who had conspired with the accused to eliminate the deceased.
4. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Rajendra Singh was the only eye witness and was examined as PW-1, Sanjay Kumar Rai was examined as PW-2, Constable Nepal Singh as PW-3, Constable Uma Shanker Singh as PW-4, SI R.P. Rai who performed the inquest report was examined as PW-5, Inspector M.S. Chaudhary was examined as PW-6, SI Ashok Kumar Pandey who investigated the matter under Section 25 of the Arms Act was examined as PW-7 and J.P. Tripathi was examined as PW-8.
5. Recovery of one country made pistol of 12 bore and 12 bore cartridge was made on 22.03.2000 by the police party led by Ashok Kumar Pandey along with SI Vinod Dubey. Constable Raja Ram Ranjan and constable Sanjay Kumar Ojha received information that one of the accused involved in the murder of Surendra Singh was present in the court campus. He was arrested at 12.10 p.m. and unlicensed arm and cartridge were recovered.
6. The Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2002 convicted both the accused under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In case of default of deposit of fine amount, they were directed to further undergo six months’ imprisonment each. Accused Kali Prasad was acquitted from the charges framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
7. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 09.10.2009, dismissed the appeal(s) of the appellants and upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence the appeals.
8. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellants urged that the entire prosecution story was concocted one and the incident has not been witnessed by PW-1 Rajendra Singh. His presence at the spot is doubtful and his deposition does not inspire confidence. Being a solitary witness, his deposition requires closer scrutiny and he is not a truthful witness. He submitted that there is no corroboration of the version of complainant Rajendra Singh (PW-1). Learned senior counsel also urged that there is manipulation as to the time when the first information was registered, it was ante timed. Apart from that, whether the police reached on the spot before the FIR was lodged or later on, is also doubtful. Learned senior counsel submitted that
