Back
High Court Of Delhi
NARESH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 67 of 1990
Decided On : 01/04/1995
{'KEYWORD': 'Murder', 'SUBJECT': 'Ante-timing of FIR', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code', 'Section 27 of the Arms Act'], 'SUMMARY': "The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder and possession of a weapon under the Arms Act. The court found that the prosecution had established a strong case against the appellant based on the testimony of credible eyewitnesses, the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant, and the presence of the deceased's blood on the weapon."}
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering Tek Chand by stabbing him in his shop. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had a motive to kill Tek Chand because Tek Chand had previously stabbed the appellant's brother. The appellant was arrested and a knife was recovered from him at his instance. The knife was found to have the deceased's blood on it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established a strong case against the appellant. The court found that the eyewitnesses were credible and their testimony was corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapon and the presence of the deceased's blood on the weapon.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was ante-timed to falsely implicate the appellant. 2. Whether the eyewitnesses were credible. 3. Whether the recovery of the murder weapon was genuine.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the mere fact that there were some lapses in the investigation, such as the failure to record the substance of the FIR in the Daily Diary and the failure to send a special report to the Magistrate, did not necessarily mean that the FIR was ante-timed. The court found that the eyewitnesses were credible and their testimony was corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapon and the presence of the deceased's blood on the weapon. 2. The court held that the eyewitnesses were credible because they were independent witnesses who had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The court also found that their testimony was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. 3. The court held that the recovery of the murder weapon was genuine because it was made at the instance of the appellant and the weapon was found to have the deceased's blood on it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences of the appellant.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and orderdated 31/03/1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which the appellanthas been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penalcode and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default to undergo furtherrigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for two years on the second count with the direction that thesubstantive sentences shall run concurrently.
( 2 ). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant s brother Jaibhagwan had been stabbed by Tek Chand-deceased and a case was registeredagainst Tek Chand for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penalcode on 13/06/1987, vide copy of the F. I. R. Ex. PW9/a. Tek Chand was having anelectric shop bearing No. WZ-297/c, JJ. Colony, Madipur, Delhi. On 13/05/1988,it is alleged that while Tek Chand was present in the shop at about 3. 30 P. M. that theappellant came to that shop and had stabbed Tek Chand with a knife and Tek Chandhad succumbed to his injuries as a result of the said assault.
( 3 ). The police came to the spot on the basis of a report No. l8 recorded at Policepost Madipur, Delhi, copy of which is Ex. PW19/a wherein it is recorded that at 4p. m. a message was received from the Police Officer Incharge of apolice van thatpolice Van-9 had removed the injured from Madipur Bus Stand to some unknownhospital. A copy of this report was handed over to ASI Om Parkash PW15 whoaccompanied by Constable Mahabir Singh had reached the said place and he metrajesh Kumar PW5 and recorded his statement Ex. PW5/a in which Rajesh Kumardisclosed that he was a resident of house No. E-370, JJ. Colony, Madipur and he isalso having a shop bearing No. WZ-297/c at that place and at about 3. 30 P. M. he wasproceeding to his house from the shop that he saw Naresh i. e. appellant coming outof the shop of Tek Chand and running away and he went to the shop of Tek Chandand found Tek Chand lying in a pool of blood and he with the help of Anil Kumarhad put Tek Chand in a police jeep and Anil Kumar told him at that time that Nareshkumar s/o Nawal Kishore of Village Madipur had stabbed Tek Chand and thereafter Anil Kumar had gone with the injured in the police jeep and got him admittedin Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. There is also a mention that a criminal case ofstabbing Jai Bhagwan, brother of the appellant, is pending against Tek Chand in thecourt and he had assaulted Tek Chand to take revenge.
( 4 ). On the basis of this statement a case was registered under Section 307 of theindian Penal Code vide F. I. R. No. 166/88 at about 4. 45 p. m. at Police Station Punjabibagh as per copy of the F. I. R. Ex. PW12/b. At this stage we may point out that in thepaper book the office had put a translation of the F. I. R. in English which containscertain cuttings regarding the date and the time but we have seen the original F. I. R. which is in Hindi and find that there is no cutting either in the date or in the time. Thelearned Counsel for the appellant in all fairness did not pursue any further contention on the basis of such cutting appearing in the translated copy of the F. I. R. prepared by our Registry.
( 5 ). Coming back to the case, PW16 SI Harpal Singh had also on receivinginformation reached the place of occurrence and on being informed that the injuredtek Chand had been removed to the hospital, he reached there and obtained themedico Legal Certificate of Tek Chand which disclosed that he had been shown asbrought dead. He took into possession the two sealed parcels containing a shirt anda vest of the deceased vide memo Ex. PW11/a. He recorded the statements ofprabhu Dayal and Anil Kumar in the hospital. PW9 Inspector Sumer Singh, SHO ofthe Police Station concerned, had conducted the inquest proceedings and preparedthe necessary papers which are Ex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
