2007 Supreme(SC) 1034

2007(5) Supreme 821
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. Arjit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
Silak Ram and Anr — Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Appeal (Crl.) 1020 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.794 of 2007)
Decided on : 06-08-2007

important point
Conviction can be based on cogent and credible evidence of eye witnesses.
Delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution version unless it is unexplained and such delay coupled with the likelihood of concoction of evidence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/34 – The evidence of PW 11 had been found to be cogent and credible on analysis – Therefore, the trial court and the High Court were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses, more particularly, PW 11. (Para 8)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/34 – Delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution version unless it is unexplained and such delay coupled with the likelihood of concoction of evidence – Trial court and High Court rightly accepted the stand of the prosecution that the delay was attributable to the flood and there was no dispute raised at any stage that there was in fact no flood in the areas in question – Thus delay was fully explained. (Paras 9 and 10)

       Facts of the case :

       The accused and the deceased are residents of village Dhanana. Mst. Bhulan had a son, namely, Jagbir, the deceased, and a daughter, namely, Krishna. Both were married. On account of floods in the village, 15 days prior to the occurrence, Prem, wife of Jagbir had gone to her parental house. Due to floods in the streets of the village, Mst. Bhulan the complainant used to tether her cattle near Dharmashala Brahmchari Ashram and Jagbir used to sleep near the cattle. On 24.9.1995, at about 9/9.30 P.M., after taking meals, as usual Jagbir went to the sitting room of accused Silak Ram son of Ram Bhagat where Narotam alias Raja, Silak Ram and Bijender alias Binder i.e. all the three accused were present. During conversation Jagbir told one Narender who was present there that Bijender Singh alias Binder was a cheap person and he could commit crime at any time. Narotam had also quarreled with Jagbir 15-20 days prior to the occurrence over the turmoil created by buffalo of the former. There was exchange of hot words between them and Jagbir, which attracted Mst. Bhulan. She intervened and brought her son back to the house and directed him to sleep aside the cattle. Mst. Bhulan in her statement further submitted that during night when she woke up to urinate, she heard cries of her son and, therefore, she ran towards Brahmchari Ashram where her son was sleeping. Chater Singh (her husband’s brother) and his son Ved Parkash also ran towards that side. They saw in the light of Brahmchari Ashram that accused Narotam alias Raja armed with gandasi, Bijjender alias Binder armed with ‘phali’ and Silak Ram armed with lathi were causing injuries to Jagbir. In their presence, Narotam alias Raja gave gandasi blow on the right temporal region of Jasbir, Bijender alias Binder gave phali blow on the right side of his chest and Silak Ram also gave lathi blow to him. On seeing the witnesses, the accused ran away from the spot. When they reached near Jagbir, then they saw that he had breathed his last. Due to the flood water in the village and in the surrounding areas of the village and also on account of fear, they could not go to the Police Station immediately.

       Ultimately, FIR was recorded at the Police Station, Bhiwani Khera, on 25.9.1995 at 11.00 A.M. On 30.5.1995, the accused were arrested from the bus stand of village Dhanana. The weapons were also recovered.

       The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and directed conviction and imposed sentences. The High Court held that at the time of the commission of offence, accused jender was 16 years of age, and at the time of High Court’s judgment was 29 years of age. It was held that if he is allowed to be mixed with juveniles the apprehension that he was likely to spoil the juveniles more in comparison with his own reformation. Therefore, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. The present appeal has been filed by Silak Ram and Narotam alias Raja. The High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence so far as these two accused persons are concerned.

       Findings of the Court:

       Evidence of PW 11 being cogent and credible, Trial court and High Court rightly placed reliance on it.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.