Back
1975 Supreme(Mad) 500
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAVEL PANDIAN
In Re Gabriel, Accused - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Case No : Cri Appeal No. 252 of 1974
Decided On : 26 September 1975
The court emphasized the importance of timely recording and transmission of the first information report (FIR) to ensure its authenticity and prevent subsequent fabrication. The court held that any delay in lodging the FIR creates a reasonable suspicion about the prosecution's case and may lead to the evidence being considered unreliable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 304, PART II, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CHALLENGE TO CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW - RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES - DELAY IN LODGING FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - DUTY OF MAGISTRATE TO NOTE TIME OF RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 154, 157 AND 159 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - MAIN LEGAL POINT: IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY RECORDING AND TRANSMISSION OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT TO ENSURE ITS AUTHENTICITY AND PREVENT SUBSEQUENT FABRICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of the deceased by kicking him in the abdomen, leading to a ruptured bladder and subsequent shock. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who claimed to have witnessed the assault and the deceased's subsequent death. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence against him was unreliable and that the first information report (FIR) was fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was tainted and unreliable. The witnesses had initially given inconsistent statements in the committal court, exonerating the appellant's co-accused, Augustin, from any involvement in the crime. The court also noted that the FIR was not recorded at the time claimed by the prosecution and that there was a delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the magistrate. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR created a reasonable suspicion about the prosecution's case and that the evidence was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Reliability of eyewitness testimony 2. Validity of the first information report (FIR) 3. Duty of the magistrate to note the time of receipt of the complaint 4. Interpretation of Sections 154, 157, and 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was unreliable due to their inconsistent statements and the fact that they had initially exonerated the appellant's co-accused from involvement in the crime. 2. The court found that the FIR was not recorded at the time claimed by the prosecution and that there was a delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the magistrate. The court held that this delay created a reasonable suspicion about the prosecution's case. 3. The court emphasized the importance of the magistrate noting the time of receipt of the complaint to ensure its authenticity and prevent subsequent fabrication. 4. The court interpreted Sections 154, 157, and 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code to highlight the duty of the police to promptly record and transmit the FIR to the magistrate and the magistrate's responsibility to note the time of receipt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charges against him.
The appellant who was charged of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but convicted under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, has preferred this criminal appeal, challenging the abovesaid conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1974 on his file.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The deceased, Savariaradimai, had two sons viz., Chelliah and Augustin. Chelliah's son is one Anjalees, who is examined as P.W. 1. The deceased was doing business in tamarind. P.W. 1 was assisting and helping the deceased in his trade. So, the deceased used to give him a share in the profits. This was resented by the second son of the deceased, Augustin. On account of this, there was enmity between P.W. 1 and Savariaradimai on the one side and Augustin on the other side. It is the case of the prosecution that Augustin, with a view to wreak vengeance on his father, induced his friend, the present appellant, to assault his father. It may be noted here that Augustin was himself originally arraigned as the second accused in this case for instigating the present appellant to commit this crime, but he was discharged by the committing Magistrate. It transpires from the evidence that the house of Augustin and the deceased are adjacent and the occurrence in this case took place in front of the house of Augustin. So much so, the houses of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 and the tea shop of P.W. 3 are situated near the scene.
3. On the night of 3-10-1973, at 8 p.m., while Savariaradimai was just leaving his house to the shop of P.W. 2, his second son Augustin, who was standing south of his house, abused the deceased in a vile language. The appellant was also present then and he also joined Augustin in abusing the deceased. Thereupon, the deceased mocked at the appellant, stating that his house is on the side of the bank and there was no necessity for him to go over here and abuse him. The appellant thereafter challenged the deceased to come out to the public road and see the result. At that time, the deceased got down from the courtyard of his house to the main road. The appellant immediately caught hold of his hands and kicked the deceased with his right leg just below the ambilicus. Then, he released the hands of the deceased who raised an alarm that the appellant was killing him by beating. Thereupon, it is stated that the appellant fisted the deceased with his right hand on the left chest of the deceased who fell down with his face upwards on receipt of the beatings. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who were there, are stated to have witnessed the entire occurrence. On that night, there was moon-light, and there was also a street light at a distance of 70 feet from the scene. In addition, the kerosene lamp M.O. 1 was burning in the shop of P.W. 2. P.W. 1, on seeing his grand-father falling down, ran towards him and picked him up. Savariaradimai stated to P.W. 1 that he was beaten by Gabriel, the appellant, and that he would die and he should be rushed to the Hospital immediately. P.W. 1 led him by walk by supporting him towards the direction of the lamp post. Savariaradimai became unconscious. P.W. 5, who came there, brought water as requested by P.W. 1 and sprinkled the same on the face of the deceased. But, Savariaradimai did not regain his consciousness. P.Ws. 1 and 2 lifted Savariaradimai and took him to the house of Augustin, where he was laid down. At that time, it was found that Savariaradimai was dead. Thereupon, P.W. 1 went to the Kollangade police station at 10 p.m. and laid a complaint Ex. P-1 before P.W. 10, the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the same as Crime No. 265 of 1973, under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant and Augustin. The original first information report is marked as Ex. P-10. P.W. 10 then reached the scene by 12.00 midnight. P.W. 11, the In
