1972 Supreme(Raj) 249

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
L.S.Mehta, J.
Mahender Singh And Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 1972. (Against Shri Devi Singh, Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.)
Decided On : 15-09-1972

Delay in sending a copy of the first information report to the Magistrate, delay in filing the first information report, failure to establish motive for the crime, unreliable evidence of eye-witnesses, way fairer witnesses, and unexplained delay in recording the statement of an eye-witness can all lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 157, CR. P.C. - DELAY IN SENDING COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT TO MAGISTRATE - SECTION 145, CR. P.C. - PRE-EMPTION SUIT - MOTIVE FOR CRIME - EYE-WITNESSES' EVIDENCE - DISTANCE BETWEEN WITNESSES AND SCENE OF OCCURRENCE - INCONSISTENCIES IN WITNESSES' STATEMENTS - WAY FAIRER WITNESSES - UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN RECORDING STATEMENT OF EYE-WITNESS - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE - SECTION 304, PART II, I.P.C. - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.

Fact of the Case:

Accused Mahender Singh and Vichiter Singh were convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C., for causing the death of Udram. The prosecution alleged that the accused had enmity with Udram due to a pre-emption suit filed by Udram against the accused's father. On October 23, 1971, the accused allegedly attacked Udram with a 'Gandasi' and a lathi, causing injuries that resulted in his death. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that they had no motive to harm Udram.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a delay in sending a copy of the first information report to the Magistrate, which raised doubts about its genuineness. The court also found that the first information report was filed with delay, and that the witnesses had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court further found that the motive for the crime was not established by the prosecution, and that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was unreliable due to inconsistencies and improbabilities in their statements. The court also noted that the witnesses were way fairer witnesses, and that there was an unexplained delay in recording the statement of one of the eye-witnesses.

Issues: 1. Whether the delay in sending a copy of the first information report to the Magistrate rendered it unreliable? 2. Whether the delay in filing the first information report affected its credibility? 3. Whether the prosecution had established the motive for the crime? 4. Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable? 5. Whether the witnesses were way fairer witnesses? 6. Whether the unexplained delay in recording the statement of one of the eye-witnesses affected the reliability of his evidence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in sending a copy of the first information report to the Magistrate was unexplained and raised doubts about its genuineness. The court relied on the provisions of Section 157, Cr. P.C., which requires the police to send a copy of the first information report to the Magistrate forthwith. The court held that the delay in sending the report was not justified and that it could have resulted in embellishment or the introduction of a coloured version of events. 2. The court held that the delay in filing the first information report was also unexplained and affected its credibility. The court noted that the occurrence took place at 2 p.m. on October 23, 1971, but the first information report was not filed until 2.10 a.m. on October 24, 1971. The court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and that it raised doubts about the veracity of the case. 3. The court held that the prosecution had not established the motive for the crime. The court noted that the accused had already won both the civil suit and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C., and that it was Udram who should have felt aggrieved against them. The court held that the prosecution had failed to show how the accused could have had a motive to harm Udram. 4. The court held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was unreliable due to inconsistencies and improbabilities in their statements. The court noted that the witnesses had given varying accounts of the incident, and that their statements were contradicted by other evidence on record. The court also noted that the witnesses were way fairer witnesses, which further undermined the reliability of their evidence. 5. The court held that the witnesses were way fairer witnesses, which meant that their evidence should be viewed with suspicion. The court noted that the witnesses had enmity with the accused, which could have motivated them to give false evidence. 6. The court held that the unexplained delay in recording the statement of one of the eye-witnesses affected the reliability of his evidence. The court noted that the witness's statement was recorded 13 days after the occurrence, and that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay. The court held that the delay raised doubts about the genuineness of the witness's statement.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C., and ordered their release from jail.