Narasapuram Balaiah VS State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Smt. M. Suguna, Advocate
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34 and 307/34—Four accused appellant came to house of PW1 in a drunken stage stabbed PW1 with Knife—Deceased, wife of PW1 when came to resent of PW1, accused No.1 stabbed deceased on her neck and victim died; had filed to establish sufficient motive for committing the offence—contradictory version whether report was prepared in police station or at appellant’s village and then given to police which created doubt if it was prepared after confabulations—FIR was received by Magistrate more than 12 hours after it was registered and no explanation for delay gave rise to reasonable inspection that FIR was ante timed—Body of deceased was found on a cot lying on road side at same distance from house of PW1—It is of PW1 in taking deceased to the created doubt about his conduct—Evidence doctor probabilized defence version put to doctor—Oral evidence consisted of PW1 and his son PW2 who were interested witnesses—Charge could not be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and conviction was liable to be set aside.
        Held: We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh. From the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the point that emerges for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
       In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1973 SC 501 H.R. Khanna, J, has highlighted the importance of the FIR in a criminal case. It was held that FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and that the importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused, that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence and that delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. It was further held that on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and that it is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained.
       In Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, the Supreme Court held that with a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks; one of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate; if this report is received by the Magistrate late, it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course, the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate and that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. If the report is received by the Magistrate late, it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate.
       In the present case, the express FIR was received by the Magistrate more than 12 hours after it was purportedly registered by the Police and this gives rise to a serious suspicion that it may have been ante-timed. The prosecution has not explained this delay. The absence of any explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the FIR was ante-timed, leaving the scope of embellishment and false implications in preparing the report.
       Another chink in the prosecutions armoury in this regard is that as per Ex.P.8 rough sketch, sprinkling of the blood of the deceased was allegedly found on the compound wall of the house of Marri Rajamma which is situated on the other side of the street, separating the house of P.W.1 and the deceased and that of the said Rajamma. From the rough sketch, it appears that the distance between the place of occurrence and the compound wall on which the blood was allegedly found is nearly 40 ft. and the distance between the cot on which the deceased was placed and the said compound wall is about 5 ft. to 6 ft. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was attacked after she was placed on the cot. Therefore, it is impossible to believe that the compound wall of Marri Rajamma was found with blood marks if the offence has taken place 40 ft. away from it within the compound of the deceased. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the offence has not taken place at the place projected by the prosecution.
       On a careful re-appreciation of the evidence discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution suffers from several loose ends and gaping holes casting heavy cloud on its credibility. We are of the further view that the alleged occurrence would not have taken place at the scene of offence set up by the prosecution and in the manner it has pleaded. The probability of the deceased sustaining injury in an altercation between two groups could not be ruled out and the prosecution failed to prove its case in a convincing manner to enable the Court to conclude without any element of doubt in its mind that accused No.1 has caused the death of the deceased and that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have also caused injuries to P.W.1 in the manner as propounded by it. Therefore, this Court feels that all the accused deserve benefit of doubt and accordingly, they are entitled to be acquitted.
       Result: Appeal allowed.