2006 Supreme(SC) 59

2006(1) Supreme 371
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan, Arun Kumar and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Sahed & Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of U.P. —Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1183-1185 of 2004
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1186 of 2004
Decided on 20-1-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.K. Jain and Dr. J.N. Dubey, Sr. Advocates, Ajay Bhalla, Rahul Agarwal, Ms. Shikha Sapra, Fuzail Khan, N.K. Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Naveen Singh, Anurag Dubey, K.B. Upadhyay, Pramod Srivastava and S.R. Setia, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Prashant Chaudhary and Sandeep Singh (for Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate), Advocates.

Important points
1. There is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye witnesses or the gist of their statement in the inquest report nor it is required to be signed by any eye witness.
2. When a criminal appeal is heard by a High Court before a Bench of Judges and they are divided in opinion, the appeal with their opinions, shall be laid before another Judge of that Court, and that Judge is free in resolving the difference as he thinks fit.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 r/ws 149—Conviction altered from Section 302 rw/s 149 IPC to that u/s 302 IPC—Deceased had died on account of stab wound inflicted on chest—Two accused A1 armed with spear and A4 who was armed with pharsa alleged to have assaulted deceased—Stab wound was caused by A1—Five days before the present incident, A1, A5 and some others had assaulted one ‘U’—PW1 was a witness of that incident—Deceased, elder brother of PW1, carrying on business in Calcutta, had come to his village two days before the Holi festival—A1 and A5 met the deceased and asked him to forbid his younger brother PW1 from giving evidence against them in the criminal case relating to assault made upon ‘U’—Deceased had told them that as his brother had seen the incident, he would appear as a witness and would depose against them—Accused felt annoyed and threatened that they would teach him a lesson—On Holi day, PW1 and deceased went to houses of some people in the village for the purpose of ‘Holi Milan’, as was customary—By evening time they were going on the pathway when accused persons armed with weapons appeared there and started assaulting deceased—PWs were also assaulted when they intervened—All the five accused were charged for offences u/ss 147, 148 and 323, 324 and 302 all read with Section 149 IPC—PW1, first informant and who had received injuries in the incident, gave complete version of the incident—His testimony was fully corroborated by PW4, PW3—Injury 1, stab injury which proved fatal was caused by A1—A1 held liable to be convicted u/s 302 IPC—Whether it can be held that common object of unlawful assembly was to commit murder of deceased—(No)—Conviction of A3, A4 and A5 u/s 302/149 IPC deserves to be set aside—They are held liable to be convicted u/s 326/149 IPC—Sentence of 7 years RI will meet ends of justice.

       Held : So far as A-1 is concerned, his case is fully covered by clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC as it can be reasonably inferred that he intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased by aiming the blow on the left side of the chest and the injury was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, he is clearly liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge had framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused including A-1. In view of Section 464 Cr.P.C. it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that the failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. (Para 17)

       In the present case the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose testimony has been relied upon, clearly deposed that A-1 was armed with a spear and he assaulted the deceased with the said weapon. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. a specific question in this regard was put to A-1. Therefore, A-1 was made aware of the basic ingredients of the offence and the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him. Thus, he can be convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of Hira Singh. (Para 17)

       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 —Section 464—Conviction of an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed—Whether it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed—(Yes, unless the Court is of the opinion that failure of justice would in fact occasion)—In order to Judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted. (Para 17)

       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 392—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Appeal to High Court before a Bench of Judges who are divided in opinion—Appeal with their opinion shall be laid before another Judge of that Court—It is for the third Judge to decide on what point he shall hear arguments, if any—Whole case is to be dealt with by the third Judge and not merely the difference between the two Judges—Third Judge is under no obligation to accept the view of one of the Judges holding in favour of acquittal of the accused. (Paras 8 and 9)

       (iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 174—Inquest Report—Evidentiary Value—Ambit and scope of proceedings—Investigation u/s 174 Cr.P.C. is limited in scope and is confined to ascertainment of apparent cause of death—Details as to names of accused or the weapons used by them in the commission of crime and nature of injury sustained by deceased need not be reported.

       Held : The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. An investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is for this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and examined under Section 175. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 174. Neither in practice nor in law it is necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention all these details. (Para 12)