The judgment underscores the importance of the first information report (F.I.R.) and the credibility of the single eye witness in establishing the prosecution case.

Headnote:
302 - Murder - Sections 302, 302 read with 34 and 109 I.P.C. - State of Punjab v. Wassan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 697 - The prompt lodging of the F.I.R. by Sattar (P.W. 1) was considered as an important circumstance for believing the informant. - State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry and another, 1960 Cr.LJ 532 - The first information report is the information recorded under S. 154. It is an information given to a police officer relating to the commission of an offence. It is also an information given by an informant on which the investigation is commenced. - Narayan Dutta v. The State, 1980 Cr.LJ 264 - The importance of the FIR lies in its being the first recorded statement of the occurrence. It is also the earliest information on which the investigation is commenced. - Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 SC 135 - Delay in recording the statement of eye witness may not by itself amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. - Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat - The High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal when two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record.
Fact of the Case:

Respondents Banney Singh and Basant Singh were tried for the charges under Sections 302, 302 read with 34 and 109 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge. Jaipur City, Jaipur in connection with the murder of one Ibrahim Khan in Roop Basant Hotel, Jaipur. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents which caused grievance to the State of Rajasthan as well as the complainant Sattar. The prosecution case rested upon the testimony of the single eye witness Abdul Sattar (P.W. 4) and the circumstance of Banney Singh being found near the dead body when the witness and the Police reached the site, Basant Singh and Roop Singh with blood stained clothes going from the hotel, Basant Singh having a knife with him which is said to have been later on recovered by the Police in pursuance of the information furnished by him and the recovery of the blood stained bushirt from the house of Nathu Balai in pursuance of the information furnished by Basant Singh.
Finding of the Court:

The learned trial Judge has disbelieved Abdul Sattar (P.W. 4) due to his unnatural conduct and certain circumstances not explained by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge has carefully examined his statement and concluded that his testimony is not of sterling worth. The learned trial Judge has rightly not attached any importance to the alleged confession of Banney Singh and the witnesses seeing Basant Singh and Roop Singh with blood stained clothes and Basant Singh having a knife in his hand while running from the hotel. The recovery of the knife and the blood stained bushirt does not connect the respondent Basant Singh with the commission of the crime in view of the medical evidence. The learned trial Judge has disbelieved Abdul Sattar (P.W. 4) and concluded that the story of Basant Singh running with a knife and getting the knife recovered after four days is unbelievable. The learned trial Judge has also disbelieved the presence of Abdul Sattar (P.W. 4) at the time of the occurrence at the site.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the single eye witness Abdul Sattar (P.W. 4) and the reliability of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. and the recovery of the blood stained clothes and knife.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the importance of the first information report (F.I.R.) and the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. as an important circumstance for believing the informant. It also highlights the significance of the presence and conduct of the single eye witness in determining the credibility of the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and the Revision petition filed by complainant Sattar were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. Respondents Banney Singh and Basant Singh were tried for the charges under Sections 302, 302 read with 34 and 109 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge. Jaipur City, Jaipur in connection with the murder of one Ibrahim Khan in Roop Basant Hotel, Jaipur. Vide judgment dated February 6, 1982 the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents which caused grievance to the State of Rajasthan as well as the complainant Sattar. Hence, the State of Rajasthan preferred appeal bearing No. D.B Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 1982 and Complainant Sattar came in Revision beading No. D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 206 of 1982.

2. As the appeal as well as the revision petition arise out of the same judgment, we propose to dispose them of by one judgment.

3. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case leading to the trial of the respondents, present appeal and revision petition, is that on August 31, 1981 at about 5.00 p.m. deceased Ibrahim Pahalwan was taking food in the upper storey of Roop Bisant Hotel at Station Road. Jaipur. His friend Abdul Sattar (PW. 4) who had come to see him and was waiting for him down stairs, on hearing his cries rushed up stairs and saw Roop Singh (co-accused since discharged by the trial Court) standing on the stairs and Basant Singh respondent inflicting knife blows to Ibrahim Pahalwan lying down and Banney Singh respondent instigating Basant Smgh to kill Ibrahim Khan. Abdul Sattar restrained them bat in vain. He then ran away to the shop where Sattar (PW. 1), brother of the deceased, was working and informed him about Banney Singh and his sons causing knife injuries to his brother and asked him to inform the police. Sattar (PW. 1) went to the Police Station nearby and informed about Banney Singh etc. causing injuries to his brother. He then rushed to the place of occurrence. Abdul Sattar (PW. 4), Inayat Ali (PW. 2) and Bundu Khan (PW. 3) also accompanied him up stairs. At that time they saw Roop Singh and Basant Singh with blood stained clothes coming down stairs and running away from there. Basant Singh is said to be having a knife in his hand at that time. Immediately thereafter, Leeladhar Sharma (PW. 14). Station House Officer, Thana Sadar reached the site and found Ibrahim in injured condition. He was sent with the Police to the hospital. He recorded the statement of Sattar (PW. 1) brother of the deceased and sent that statement Ex. P/2 to the Police Station for registering the case and he himself proceeded with the investigation. He prepared site plan Ex. P/3 and site inspection memo Ex. P/3A. Banney Singh present at the site was arrested vide memo Ex. P/7 and his blood stained clothes were taken in possession and sealed. The SHO then went to the hospital where Ibrahim breathed his last. Panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared. The autopsy over the dead body was conducted by Dr. B B.L. Goswami (PW. 13). Medical Jurist, Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur and postmortem examination report Ex. P/9 was prepared. The Doctor noted 15 injuries on the dead body caused by sharp and blunt object. On Sept. 1, 1981 SHO Leeladhar Sharma (PW. 14) arrested Basant Singh vide memo Ex. P/8 and on his information recovered one blood stained bushirt Ex. 2 from over a cot in the house of Nathu Balai. On September 3. 1981 in pursuance of the information furnished by Basant Singh, the SHO recovered one blood stained knife Ex. 1 vide Ex. P/11 from the room in Roop Bisant Hotel lying in the clothes. The SHO had on the date of occurrence also taken in possession the blood stained clothes of Abdul Sattar (PW. 4).

4. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge sheet against the respondents and co-accused Roop Singh was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 12 Jaipur City and the case on committal reached the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The learned Judge discharged accused Roop Singh and proceeded with the trial against the two respondents. The case of prosecution was not held to be established and the judgmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(Raj) 770

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHKanta Bhatnagar, Yadram Meena, JJ.State of Rajasthan & Anr. - AppellantsVersusBanney Singh & Ors. - RespondentsD.B. Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 1982.Decided On : 3-12-1990

The judgment underscores the importance of the first information report (F.I.R.) and the credibility of the single eye witness in establishing the prosecution case.

Cases Referred (2)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanta Bhatnagar, Yadram Meena, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Banney Singh & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 1982.
Decided On : 3-12-1990