Back
Next 
2012 Supreme(All) 363
[2012(3) ADJ 31 (DB)(NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DHARNIDHAR JHA AND ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
BALI RAM ....Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 881 of 1983, decided on 6th February, 2012)
Advocates:
Counsel :
H.N. Sharma, Braham Singh, C.S. Chaturvedi, Kapil Tyagi, P.K. Jauhari, Pankaj Dubey and R.K. Rai for the Appellant; D.G.A., G.S. Chaturvedi, P.C. Chaturvedi, P.K. Tiwari and P.K. Tewari for the Respondent.
Counsel :
H.N. Sharma, Braham Singh, C.S. Chaturvedi, Kapil Tyagi, P.K. Jauhari, Pankaj Dubey and R.K. Rai for the Appellant; D.G.A., G.S. Chaturvedi, P.C. Chaturvedi, P.K. Tiwari and P.K. Tewari for the Respondent.
Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 304-II—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 157—Murder—Conviction—Sustainability of—Delay in despatch of FIR—Merely suggesting delay in despatch of report may not be sufficient in it self to discard document as a collusive/fabricated—In present case no delay in dispatching FIR—Informant and other witnesses are competent persons in whose presence real part of occurence had taken place—Sudden fight which had taken place during "Hukka" smoking—No evidence to show pre-mediation—Single blow given by instrument—Further, no intention to cause death—Conviction/sentence modified.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 157—Expression "Forthwith"—Meaning of—It means despatch of report with promptitude eliminating any chance of raising any inference—As if same could have been purposely delayed for making consultations and deliberations.
