2023 Supreme(SC) 1215

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Sekaran – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2294 of 2010
Decided On : 12-12-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where evidence is so inseparable that any attempt to separate them would destroy substratum on which the prosecution version is founded, then this Court would be within its legal limits to discard evidence in its entirety.
(2) Merely because there is some delay in lodging FIR, same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in mind of courts in all cases as fatal for prosecution.
(3) It is not quantity but quality of evidence that would matter.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – In cases of present nature, where material witnesses are withheld by prosecution and it is positive case set up by defence that he has been falsely implicated for murder though death of victim could be for reasons attributable to an accidental fall from a tree and such a case in defence finds some amount of corroboration from other evidence on record, coupled with fact that appellate court has imposed a lesser sentence upon reversal of finding of murder returned by trial court, this Court as court of last resort has duty to separate grain from chaff and after sieving untruth or unacceptable portion of evidence, to also examine whether residue is sufficient to prove guilt of accused – There seems to be no legal bar in convicting accused resting on part of evidence which is primarily found to be credible and acceptable – However, where evidence is so inseparable that any attempt to separate them would destroy substratum on which the prosecution version is founded, then this Court would be within its legal limits to discard evidence in its entirety. (Para 10)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Merely because there is some delay in lodging FIR, same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in mind of courts in all cases as fatal for prosecution – Realistic and pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind peculiarities of each particular case, to assess whether unexplained delay in lodging FIR is an afterthought to give a coloured version of incident, which is sufficient to corrode credibility of prosecution version – In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on anvil of other attending circumstances – If on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to court that delay in lodging FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient to disbelieve prosecution case – However, if delay is not satisfactorily explained and it appears to court that cause for delay had been necessitated to frame anyone as accused, there is no reason as to why delay should not be considered as fatal forming part of several factors to vitiate conviction. (Para 11)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-Part II – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – It is not quantity but quality of evidence that would matter – Belated reporting of crime to police resulting in undue delay would bear relevance – Prosecution has not explained why star witnesses were not called upon to depose despite they being present at place of occurrence and despite their statements having been recorded in course of investigation – None of medical documents having been produced, there is no corroboration that head injury which deceased suffered was caused by blow of rubber stick and also that same could not have been suffered as a result of a fall from tree – In light of delay in lodging of FIR and on threadbare consideration of other evidence on record, circumstances surrounding death of deceased do not clearly and unequivocally point to involvement of appellant and his false implication cannot be wholly ruled out – Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt to him. (Paras 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 25 and 26)

Facts of the case:

High Court, vide judgment and order dated 12th November 2009, allowed appeal in part. Appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 304-Part II, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. Still dissatisfied, judgment and order of High Court has been carried by appellant in appeal before this Court.

Findings of Court:

Judgment and order dated 12th November 2009, which is under challenge in this appeal, stands set aside. Appellant shall be set free, unless he is wanted in any other case. He stands discharged of his bail bonds.

Result : Appeal allowed.