1. Murder and attempt to murder — Unlawful assembly armed with weapons — Conviction under Sections 302/149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Prabhu Dayal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 2014
Decided On : 04-07-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
FIR is not an encyclopedia of the case. A witness’ testimony need not be disbelieved only because it did not find mention in the FIR.
It is not necessary to discard entire testimony because a part of it is false.
Members of unlawful assembly having common object of committing murder of deceased are liable for conviction.
Merely because blood group of the human blood stain could not be ascertained due to disintegration, conviction cannot be undone.
FIR is not an encyclopedia of the case. A witness’ testimony need not be disbelieved only because it did not find mention in the FIR.
It is not necessary to discard entire testimony because a part of it is false.
Members of unlawful assembly having common object of committing murder of deceased are liable for conviction.
Merely because blood group of the human blood stain could not be ascertained due to disintegration, conviction cannot be undone.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – Need not contain exhaustive account of incident – It is not an encyclopedia of the case – A witness’ testimony need not be disbelieved only because it did not find mention in the FIR. (Para 9)
(2003) 1 SCC 648; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 208; (1997) 1 SCC 93; (2017) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Minor contradictions in testimony of the witnesses – Not fatal to case of the prosecution – Court can separate grain from chaff – Not necessary to discard entire testimony because a part of it is false. (Para 10)
(1985) 1 SCC 505; 1988 Supp SCC 686; (1999) 9 SCC 525; (2002) 8 SCC 381 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Members of unlawful assembly – Having common object of committing murder of deceased – Liable for conviction. (Para 11)
AIR 1965 SC 202; (1989) 1 SCC 437; (1995) 4 SCC 430 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – FSL report – Samples containing blood stains – Disintegrating due to lapse of tine – Blood group not ascertained – However blood stains found to be of human origin – Conviction cannot be reversed on this ground. (Para 12)
(1999) 3 SCC 507 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – FSL report – Ballistic report – Fully supporting evidence of eye witnesses – No error in conviction. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted u/s 302/149 IPC and this was affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction — Delay and inconsistency in FIR — Non-disclosure of names in initial police report — Contradictions in witness testimony — Lack of forensic evidence. (Para 4 )
3. FIR is not an encyclopedia — Minor contradictions by rustic witnesses are not fatal — Membership in unlawful assembly with common object attracts vicarious liability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Membership in an unlawful assembly with a common object attracts vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC, regardless of whether a specific overt act was committed. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment confirmed. (Para 14 )
6. Does a First Information Report (FIR) need to contain an exhaustive account of the incident to be reliable?
No, an FIR is not an encyclopedia of the case. It need not contain every detail or name every accused; broad facts are sufficient, and omissions or misdescriptions do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case. (Para 9 )
7. How should courts treat minor contradictions or exaggerations in the testimony of rustic witnesses?
Minor discrepancies on trivial matters are not fatal. Courts should determine if the evidence as a whole has a ring of truth and sift the grain from the chaff, as honest witnesses may differ in details. (Para 10 )
8. Is it necessary to prove a specific overt act to convict a person under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
No. Liability under Section 149 is vicarious. It is sufficient to prove the person was a member of an unlawful assembly sharing the common object of committing the crime, regardless of their individual overt act. (Para 11 )
9. Does the failure of a serologist to determine the specific origin of blood due to disintegration invalidate the evidence?
Not necessarily. If blood is found to be of human origin, the failure to detect a specific group due to disintegration does not automatically render the evidence useless or fatal to the prosecution. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
The judgment and order of conviction dated 17.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2003, insofar as it relates to the conviction of the appellant, is the subject matter of this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No. 2, Bharatpur, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No. 53/2001.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the night of 01.05.1997, the informant Vikram Singh, who was sleeping at a distance of 15 to 20 yards from his brother Gopal in his house, heard the sound of a fired gun shot and got up at 1:00 a.m. in the intervening night between 01.05.1997 and 02.05.1997; he saw Prabhu (the appellant herein), Indal, Rajveer, Gyan, and Shiv Singh armed with weapons and standing near the cot on which his brother Gopal was lying, shouting that Prabhu (the appellant herein) fired on his chest; then Prabhu told Shiv Singh to kill his bhabhi Smt. Devi; thereupon, Shiv Singh opened fire and injured her; Prabhu, Rajveer, Indal and Shiv Singh were having kattas (country made pistol) in their hands and Gyan was armed with farsa (axe); 4 to 5 other persons were also standing outside the compound but he could not identify them because of the darkness; the appellant-Prabhu was shouting that they have killed Gopal on that day and they will see who dares to oppose them in the future; the informant raised a hue and cry and at that point of time, Surjan, Ramesh, Subhash, Pappu and other neighbours reached on the spot. Based on these allegations, the first information came to be lodged by Vikram Singh as per Exhibit P14 on 02.05.1997.
Totally, ten accused were tried, including the appellant herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 459, 460, 120B, 118, and 176 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.
3. The Trial Court acquitted accused nos. 7 to 10 and convicted accused nos. 1 to 5, viz., Gyan Singh, Shiv Singh, Indal, Rajveer and Prabhu Dayal (the appellant herein) (Accused No.6 – Babu expired during investigation). Gyan Singh was convicted under S. 302, IPC simpliciter, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Shiv Singh was convicted under Section 307, IPC, and sentenced to simple imprisonment of 4 years with fine. The rest of the accused, including Indal, Rajveer, and Prabhu Dayal, were convicted under Ss. 302/149, IPC and given the same sentence as Gyan Singh. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, one of the accused – Indal expired. Thus, the appeal was heard by the High Court against four accused, namely, Gyan Singh, Shiv Singh, Rajveer and Prabhu Dayal. The High Court on hearing, while acquitting the accused – Rajveer, has confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court in respect of Gyan Singh, Shiv Singh and Prabhu Dayal.
The accused – Gyan Singh has served the sentence of imprisonment and he has not filed an appeal in this Court. The accused – Shiv Singh did not choose to file an appeal and consequently has accepted the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him. Hence, the accused – Prabhu Dayal is the only person who is before this Court in this appeal, questioning the judgment and order of conviction passed against him.
4. Shri Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Advocate, took us to the material on record and submitted that the High Court is not justified in affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The names of the accused, including the appellant, were not disclosed by the alleged eye witnesses when they went to the police station immediately after the incident, i.e., at 2:00 a.m. on 02.05.1997, and hence it is clear that the so-called eye witnesses are not actually the eye witnesses of the incident; the prosecution witnesses had been changing the sto
