Back
1997 (1) JLJ 157
(SUPREME COURT)
Dr. A.S. Anand and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Girish Yadav and others v. State of M.P.
Cri. Appeal No.318 of 1988; against the judgment of M.P. High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 908 of 1986, arising out of judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, passed in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1983;
Decided on 29.3.1996.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- FIR whether antetimed or antedated - can be judged from external checks -- no question put either to informant or to the witness who recorded the FIR - site map and panchnama of dead body prepared just after the recording of FIR -- FIR is reliable being prompt. (1994) 5 SCC 188 relied on. Judgment of High Court affirmed. [Para 7
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- FIR -- application to doctor for post-mortem -- non-mention of names of accused is immaterial-- FIR cannot be inferred to be antedated or antetimed for this reason. [Para 7
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 174 and 157 -- copy of inquest report and FIR -- may be presumed to have been sent without delay to the concerned Magistrate when investigation was prompt. AIR 1978 SC 59 and JT 1994 (2) SC 627 distinguished. [Para 8
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- FIR timely lodged -- police machinery set in motion promptly -- if reflects first hand account of what actually happened and who are responsible for the same. JT 1995 (6) SC 383 relied on. [Para 9
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 60 and 138 -- names of eye witnesses duly recorded in FIR -- their testimonies well stood to the test of cross-examination -- they cannot be said to be chance witnesses. [Para 10
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 45 and 60 -- weapon used to inflict injuries accounted for by eye witnesses -- medical evidence proving such injuries -- eye witnesses duly corroborated by expert opinion. [Para 10
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- eye witnesses giving clear account of incident from beginning to the end -- cannot be disbelieved simply because one broken weapon was found 36 ft. away and was not noticed by any witness. [Para 12
(9) Witness -- not having any axe to grind against accused -- cannot be presumed to have falsely implicated the accused in the crime. [Para 13
(10) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- recitals in spot map not proved -- such recitals are hearsay only -- they would not detract from account of eye witnesses and F.I.R. [Para 14
(11) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 319 -- Court has ample power to implead accused found prima facie involved in the case such involvement may be ascertained by recording evidence. [Para 15
(12) Witness -- tempered -- and affidavit got signed after more than a year -- further gap of 26 days between stamp date and date put by notary admitting - witness to have put his signatures under influence of liquor -- such affidavit rightly disbelieved. Judgment of High Court affirmed. [Para 16
(13) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 45 and 60 -- some of the injuries not noticed by doctor -- that by itself not sufficient to ignore eye witnesses‘ evidence. [Para 17
(14) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302/149 and 148 -- offences under -- FIR promptly lodged -- eye witnesses corroborated by FIR and medical opinion - offences established beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 21 & 22
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 136 && fo‘ks"k btktr ij nkafMd vihy && lk{; dh foospuk i‘pkr~ fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkfyf[kr rF; ds lqlaxr fu"d"kksZa esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tkrkA ¼1993½ lIyh- 3 ,l lh lh 134 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ iwoZle;kafdr vFkok iwoZfnukafdr gksuk && cká tk¡p&iM+rky }kjk ij[kk tk ldrk gS && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHkfyf[kr djkus okys lk{; vFkok bfÙkyk nsus okys ls dksbZ iz‘u ugha fd;k x;k && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky gksus ds rqjar i‘pkr~ LFkku dk uD‘kk rFkk iapukek rS;kj fd;k x;k && rRijrk ls dh xbZ gksus ds dkj.k izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fo‘oluh; gSA ¼1994½5 ,l lh lh 188 voyafcrA mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 7
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && ‘ko ijh{kk ds fy, MkDVj dks vkosnu && vfHk;qDr dk uke ugha fn;k tkuk rRoghu gS && bl dkj.k ls izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk iwoZ iwoZfnukafdr vFkok iwoZle;kafdr gksus dk vuqeku ugha yxk;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 7
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 174 rFkk 157 && e`R;q&leh{kk fjiksVZ rFkk izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dh izfrfyfi && vUos"k.k tc rRijrkiwoZd fd;k x;k] lacaf/kr eftLVªsV dks fcuk foyac Hksth xbZ gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 59 rFkk ts Vh 1994 ¼2½ ,l lh 627 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 8
¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ le; ij nkf[ky dh xbZ && iqfyl ra= rRijrk ls fØ;k‘khy && okLrfodr% D;k gqvk rFkk mlds ftEesnkj dkSu gSa mlls izR;{k o`Ùkkar feyrk gSA ts Vh 1995 ¼6½ ,l lh 383 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9
¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 rFkk 138 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa ds uke lE;d~ :i ls vfHkfyf[kr && mudk ijflk{; izfrijh{kk esa lqn`<+ jgk && mUgsa la;ksxh lk{kh ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 10
¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 45 rFkk 60 && {kfr;k¡ dkfjr djus ds fy, iz;qDr vk;q/k dk izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk o.kZu fn;k x;k && fpfdRlh; lk{; }kjk ,slh {kfr;k¡ lkfcr && izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh fo‘ks"kK dh jk; }kjk lE;d~ :i ls laiq"VA ¿ iSjk 10
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk vkjaHk ls ysdj var rd ?kVuk dk Li"V fooj.k fn;k x;k && ek= blfy, vfo‘okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ,d VwVk vk;q/k 36 QqV nwj ik;k x;k rFkk fdlh Hkh lk{kh }kjk ns[kk ugha x;kA ¿ iSjk 12
¼9½ lk{kh && vfHk;qDr ds fo:) viuk mYyw lh/kk djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha && muds }kjk vfHk;qDr dks vijk/k esa feF;k :i ls vkfyI djus dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 13
¼10½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && LFkku ds uD‘ks esa ds fooj.k lkfcr ugha && ,sls dFku ek= vuqJqfr gSa && muls izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa ds o`Ùkkar rFkk izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk feF;kiokn ugha gksxkA ¿ iSjk 14
¼11½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 319 && ekeys esa izFken`"V~;k varxZzLr ik, x, vfHk;qDr dks vfHk;ksftr djus dh U;k;ky; dks O;kid ‘kfDr izkIr gS && ,slk varxZzLr gksuk lk{; ds vfHkys[ku }kjk vfHkfuf‘pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 15
¼12½ lk{kh && rS;kj fd;k x;k && rFkk ‘kiFki= ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ i‘pkr~ gLrk{kfjr djk;k x;k && LVkai dh rkjh[k rFkk uksVjh }kjk Mkyh xbZ rkjh[k ds chp Hkh 26 fnu dk varj && lk{kh }kjk eÙkrk dh n‘kk esa gLrk{kj fd;k tkuk Lohd`r && ,sls ‘kiFki= ij Bhd gh vfo‘okl fd;k x;kA mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 16
¼13½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 45 rFkk 60 && dqN {kfr;ksa ij MkDVj dk /;ku ugha x;k && og Lo;eso izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; ij /;ku ugha nsus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 17
¼14½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 302@149 rFkk 148 && vijk/k && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rRijrk ls nkf[ky && izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rFkk fpfdRlh; jk; }kjk laiq"V && vijk/k ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs LFkkfirA ¿ iSjk 21 ,oa 22
S.B. Majmudar, J. -- 1. These three criminal appeals have been filed by in all 8 accused who have felt aggrieved by their conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1983 by his judgment dated 8th August 1986 convicting them under section 148 and section 302 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them respectively to two years' rigorous imprisonment each and imprisonment for life. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They have also felt aggrieved by the dismissal of their Criminal Appeal No. 908 of 1986 by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on 26th February 1988. Though all the 8 appellants had filed one criminal appeal before the High Court, in this Court they have filed separate appeals by obtaining special leave to appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1988 is moved by accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 5 respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1988 is filed by accused No.2 while Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1991 is filed by accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Facts leading to these appeals
2. On 4th September 1982 at about 4.30 p.m., according to the prosecution story, in a narrow lane of Budhaiya Mohalla near Lal Chabutra in the city of Jabalpur, deceased Gudda alias Narayan Tiwari was chased by the appellants accused and murdered. The appellants Chandu Patel, Ganesh Patel, Bhagwandas Yadav and Girish Yadav are alleged to have armed themselves with 'bankas', appellant Jaggu Yadav with 'pharsa' and appellants Rajjan Yadav and Rikhilal with iron rods. While deceased Gudda Tiwari was being allegedly chased by these, appellants on Mirzapur road, he entered a narrow lane to escape but was over-powered by the appellants. The appellants are also alleged to have shouted that 'kill Gudda Tiwari and he should not escape today'. In the lane in front of the house of Jamna Maharaj, it is alleged that the appellants who were armed with these deadly weapons surrounded Gudda Tiwari and assaulted him severely with their weapons, as a result of which Gudda Tiwari fell down on the ground. The incident was witnessed by Indu Tiwari, P.W. 2-younger brother of the deceased who shouted for help but none came forward to save deceased Gudda Tiwari. This incident was also witnessed at the same time by Badri Prasad, P.W. 1, Ganesh Patel, P.W. 5 and Balkrishna, D.W. 1. When Indu Tiwari, P.W. 2, the younger brother of the deceased perceived from a distance that Gudda Tiwari had fallen on the ground and appeared to him to be dead, he rushed to Police Station Gohalpur on foot after abandoning his motor-cycle and lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-1) which was recorded by S.R. Tandon, P.W. 11 who was then posted as Town Inspector. After departure of Indu Tiwari from the scene of the incident, the appellant Vijay Patel who is alleged to have arrived on the scene of the incident, asked other appellants to move away and then threw a bomb towards the fallen Gudda Tiwari. It is alleged that the bomb exploded and whole of the back of the deceased Gudda Tiwari was injured with bums and glass pieces.
3. After recording the FIR, the police machinery immediately moved and while S.R. Tandon, P.W. 11 was proceeding towards the place of the incident he perceived that one of the alleged assailants Chandu Patel was proceeding towards the Police Station on a bicycle hence he was apprehended then and there and taken to Police Station. When the police arrived on the scene, a huge excited crowed had gathered there by the time. Shri T.C. Usrey, P.W. 13 prepared it map of the spot (Ex. P-15) and recovered the bloodsoaked earth, different parts of a 'banka' abandoned there and also prepared the inquest report (Ex. P-11) on the spot. Subsequently T.C. Usrey, P.W. 13 sent the dead body of Gudda Tiwari for post mortem examination. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.K. Yadav, P.W. 6 on 5.9.1982 at about 11.15 a.m. 4. P.W. 13, T.C. Usrey concluded the investigation, arre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
