2023 0 Supreme(SC) 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Nand Lal And Others – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1470 OF 2017, Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2023, (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019)
Decided on : 14-03-2023
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Omission on part of prosecution to explain injuries on person of accused assumes much greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses.
(2) When parties are at loggerheads, immediate lodging of FIR provides credence to prosecution case.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Delay of four hours in lodging FIR is not at all explained – Omission on part of prosecution to explain injuries on person of accused assumes much greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses – There was previous enmity between two families – Previous enmity is a double-edged sword – On one hand, it can provide motive and on other hand, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out – Prosecution has attempted to suppress real genesis of incident – Case rests on evidence of interested witnesses – Two of them are injured witnesses – In case of proven previous enmity, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out – Conviction of accused purely on the basis of oral testimony of interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would not be sustainable – Appellants acquitted by extending them benefit of doubt. (Paras 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37 and 38)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – In each and every case, delay in lodging FIR would not be fatal to prosecution case – It will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case – FIR is a valuable piece of evidence, although it may not be substantial evidence – Immediate lodging of FIR removes suspicion with regard to over-implication of number of persons, particularly when case involved a fight between two groups – When parties are at loggerheads, immediate lodging of FIR provides credence to prosecution case. (Paras 30 and 31)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – In category of “wholly reliable” witness, there is no difficulty for prosecution to press for conviction on the basis of testimony of such a witness – In case of “wholly unreliable” witness, again, there is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction could be made on the basis of oral testimony provided by a “wholly unreliable” witness – Real difficulty comes in case of third category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly unreliable – In such cases, court is required to be circumspect and separate chaff from grain, and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals assail judgment and order dated 11th November 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants herein and confirming the judgment and order dated 24th May 2008 passed by trial court, convicting the appellants along with other accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with other offences and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order dated 11th November 2014 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, and judgment and order dated 24th May 2008 passed by the trial court are quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Renjith. B. Marar, AOR (A.C.) Mr. Renjith B., Adv. Mr. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Adv. Ms. Ashu Jain, Adv. Mr. Davesh Kr. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Poomulli, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Tiwary, Adv (A.C.) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP(Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019.
2. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11th November 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants herein and confirming the judgment and order dated 24th May 2008 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”), convicting the appellants along with other accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) along with other offences and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus:
On the night of 3rd November 2006, at around 07.30 PM, Naresh Kumar, accused No. 11 had assaulted Atmaram (PW-1). After the said assault, Atmaram (PW-1) went to the Police Station, Suhela for lodging a report. Thereafter, Naresh Kumar, accused No.11 along with other accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly, entered the house of deceased Kartikram and assaulted him as well as Mangtin Bai (PW-2) and Khomlal (PW-9). As a result of the said assault, Kartikram died on the spot. Thereafter, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13), wife, son and daughter-in-law of deceased Kartikram respectively, along with neighbours Baliram Sahu (PW-3) and Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6) went in a tractor to Baloda Bazar to see a doctor, who refused to treat them unless a report was lodged at the police station. Thereafter, a jeep was hired and they went to the Police Station, Suhela. On the basis of the oral report (Ex. P-9), a merg report (Ex. P-10) came to be registered. Subsequently, the First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) came to be registered.
4. On the basis of the said FIR, Inspector Kamal Singh (PW-14), Investigating Officer (IO) conducted the investigation. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against 12 accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas