Page 1 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2110 OF 2009

NARENDER SINGH & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….. RESPONDENT

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2111 OF 2009

THUDDI & ANR. ….. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….. RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J.

Out of 7 accused, A2 to A6 are the appellants before

us in these two appeals.

2.These appeals are directed against the common

judgment and order dated 7

th

September, 2006 of the

PAGE NO. 1 of 17

Page 2 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2000. Altogether

there were seven accused. One accused by name Ravi was a

juvenile and, therefore, his case was separated and dealt

with separately. As A1 has not preferred any appeal, we

are not concerned with his case.

3.Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the

prosecution is that on 27

th

June, 1997 at 10:00p.m.

P.W.3, 6 and the deceased were sitting and conversing

with each other along with one Rangnath Sharma behind the

Hotel of Jaggi Chourasia of village Katra. The deceased

was the Sarpanch of the village near Katra which is part

of Nayagaon. According to P.W. 3, there was sufficient

light since the street lights were on apart from a

chimney burning near the hotel. It was stated that the

accused arrived at the spot, among whom A5 was holding a

sword, A6 was holding a Farsa, A2 was having an axe while

A1, A3 and A4 were having lathis. On arrival at that

spot, it was alleged that A5 while abusing the deceased

and making a pronouncement that he cannot escape that

day, dealt with a sword blow on the head of the deceased

pursuant to which blood flush out and that thereafter A6

dealt a farsa blow which also landed on the head of the

deceased. Closely followed by that A2 caused an injury

with an axe again on the head of the deceased, after

PAGE NO. 2 of 17

Page 3 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

which the deceased fell down. The other accused A1, A3

and A4 stated to have caused further injuries with

lathis. P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and others pleaded with the

accused to spare the deceased upon which A5 with a

warning to the deceased that he should not contest

against him in future left the place of occurrence along

with other accused. P.W.3, thereafter stated to have

reached the Police Station Saleha which was hardly within

one kilometer from the place of occurrence where the FIR

Exhibit P3 came to be registered at 10:45 p.m.

4.P.W. 15, the Investigating Officer after

registration of the FIR stated to have rushed to the

place of occurrence between 11:00 and 11:15p.m.

whereafter he prepared Exhibits P7 P/1A, P/1B and

subsequently ended with P10 which are the crime details

form [Form No.2], application for examination of injured

P.W. 3 and the application for post mortem. P.W. 3 was

examined by P.W.1 who issued Exhibit P1, M.L.C. Report.

Pursuant to the requisition Exhibit P10 made by P.W.15,

the post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased

by P.W.10 and as many as 8 injuries were noted on the

body of the deceased. Out of the 8 injuries, injury Nos.

4,5, 6 and 7 were noted as grievous injuries while the

other injuries were contusions.

5.Based on the above details gathered, prosecution

PAGE NO. 3 of 17

Page 4 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

laid the charge sheet as against the accused for offences

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 294 of the Indian

Penal Code. The trial Court, having considered the oral

as well as documentary evidence namely, P.Ws. 1 to 16

and Exhibits P1 to P31 convicted the appellants accused

for the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 148

and 149 IPC. The appellants were imposed with the

punishment of life imprisonment. As against the above

conviction and sentence imposed, the appellants along

with other accused namely, A1 preferred the appeal before

the High Court. The Division Bench having confirmed the

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, they

are before us.

6.We heard Mr. Tripurari Ray, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the

State.

7.The main plank of attack on the judgment impugned in

these appeals are two-fold namely, that the FIR was

ante-dated and that the appellants were falsely

implicated. In support of the above submissions, Mr. Ray

while making reference to the version of P.Ws. 1,3,10 and

15 and Exhibits P/1A, P/1B, P7 and P10, contended that

there were very many inconsistent circumstances which

would show that the case was not as projected by the

prosecution for implicating the appellants and,

PAGE NO. 4 of 17

Page 5 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed are liable

to be set aside. The learned counsel, by referring to

the evidence of P.W. 3 as compared to the evidence of

P.W. 15 contended that there were serious doubts as to

whether the said FIR was registered at 10:45p.m. on 27

th

June, 1997 as claimed; whether P.W.3 was injured at all

as claimed by him and as stated by P.W.1, that

non-mentioning of the various details relating to the

FIR, the names of accused in Exhibits P1A, P7 and P10

would also belie the case of the prosecution and would

support the stand of the appellants that the FIR was

ante-dated. The learned counsel submitted that it was

further strengthened by the fact that it was claimed by

P.Ws. 3 and 6 that one Ranganath Sharma was also present

at the place of occurrence and that for no reason he was

not examined by the prosecution. It was further

contended that while the registration of the FIR was

claimed to be 10:45p.m.on 27

th

June, 1997, there was no

valid explanation as to why the Express Report under

Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not

forwarded to the Judicial Illaka Magistrate forthwith

which in the case on hand admittedly reached the learned

Magistrate only at 1:20p.m. on 30the June, 1997.

8.While elaborating his submission, learned counsel

pointed out that Exhibit P7 is the statutory form namely,

PAGE NO. 5 of 17

Page 6 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

Form No.2 called 'Crime Details Form', wherein there is a

specific column, namely, Column No.6 to note the

description of the injured persons, that the name of

deceased Ram Bhuvan, son of Sunder Lal Sharma alone was

noted and without any valid explanation the name of P.W.3

who was stated to have been injured in the same

transaction was not mentioned. Learned counsel then

pointed out that in Exhibit P1A, which is the application

for examination of injured P.W. 3, either the Crime

Number or the FIR Number was not noted apart from the

fact of non-mentioning of the time at which the said

application was sent to the Doctor on 28

th

June, 1997.

The learned counsel while making reference to the

application for post mortem Exhibit P10 also dated 28

th

June, 1997, pointed out that while the said application

was presented to the Doctor at 7:30a.m. on 28

th

June,

1997, for conducting the post mortem, there was no

reference to any of the names of the accused whose names

were already disclosed to the police at 10:45p.m. as per

FIR registered at 10:45p.m.on 27

th

June, 1997.

9.The learned counsel also brought to our notice

Exhibit D8 to show that the Express Report was received

by the Illaka Magistrate only at 1:20p.m.on 30

th

June,

1997. The learned counsel also while making reference to

the evidence of P.W.1 contended that there was a specific

PAGE NO. 6 of 17

Page 7 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

suggestion put to P.W. 1 that the injuries alleged to

have been sustained by P.W.3 was a fake one and that the

examination of P.W.10, the Doctor who conducted post

mortem also revealed that the injuries which were noted

on the body of the deceased were not specifically

attributed to the alleged seized weapons from the accused

and thereby creating serious doubts as to whether or not

such weapons were used and were the cause for the death

of the deceased. The learned counsel also drew our

attention to various other minor infirmities in the

evidence of the prosecution and contended that the

prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled

against the appellants and consequently the impugned

judgment deserves to be set aside.

10.As against the above submissions, Mr. Arjun Garg,

learned counsel for the State by drawing our attention to

the arrest of the appellants effected on 28

th

June, 1997

and the subsequent seizure made on 29

th

June, 1997

supported by Exhibits P22 to 24, as well as, Section 27

Statement under Exhibits P18 to P21, contended that the

arrest of the accused and the seizure made by the panch

witnesses duly established that the appellants were

involved in the killing of the deceased as well as

causing of the injuries on P.W.3. The learned counsel

for the State submitted that even though there was a

PAGE NO. 7 of 17

Page 8 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

delay in forwarding the Express Report to the Illaka

Magistrate the same did not cause any prejudice to the

appellants and that the charges were found proved against

the appellants. The learned counsel, further, contended

that P.W.15 after registering the FIR forwarded the

Express Report through the Police Constable Narendra

Chauhan on 27

th

June, 1997 itself by noting it down in

the Despatch Register and that though under Exhibit D8

the receipt of the same by the Illaka Magistrate is noted

as 1:20p.m.on 30

th

June, 1997, he was unaware as to the

reason which caused the delay. The learned counsel would

contend that the Illaka Magistrate was at Panna which was

60KMS away from the place of occurrence and that though

there was some delay in forwarding the receipt of the

Express Report, since there was every clinching evidence

in the form of eye witness account as well as other

material evidence supported by medical evidence as well,

as no prejudice was caused to the appellants on account

of such delay, no infirmity can be found in the judgment

impugned in these appeals.

11.Having heard respective counsel for the appellants

as well as the State, we are also convinced that the

judgment impugned does not call for interference. When

we considered the submission of learned counsel for the

appellants with particular reference to the evidence of

PAGE NO. 8 of 17

Page 9 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

P.W. 3 who was an injured eye witness, it was contended

that the FIR itself could not have been registered at

10:45p.m. inasmuch as even according to P.W. 3 his

signature was obtained at a later point of time. At the

very outset, it must be stated that by referring to this

part of the evidence, we are not able to state that

registration of FIR could not have been made at 10:45p.m.

inasmuch as other consequential steps taken thereafter

with particular reference to Exhibit P7,P1A to B and P10

which were all contemporaneous documents which disclose

that immediately after the registration of FIR at

10:45p.m., P.W. 15 reached the place of occurrence and

proceeded with further course of action. Therefore, the

said contention stands rejected.

12.As far as the contention that the injuries sustained

by P.W. 3 could have been a fake one and consequently his

presence itself was not true, the said contention is also

liable to be rejected, inasmuch as we do find from the

evidence of P.W. 1 who examined P.W.3 on the night of

27

th

/28

th

June, 1997 itself noted the various injuries

sustained by him in Exhibit P1B based on the application

made under Exhibit P1A dated 28

th

June, 1997 Exhibit

P1B discloses the time as 1:30a.m. in the night on 28

th

June,1997. In the evidence of P.W. 1 at the end of the

examination there was a specific question put to P.W. 1

PAGE NO. 9 of 17

Page 10 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

as to the examination of P.W.3, wherein he made it

explicit to the effect that P.W. 3 was examined in the

night intervening 27

th

and 28

th

June,1997 and the injuries

noted by him in Exhibit P1B was also confirmed by him in

his oral evidence. In fact, there was a broad reference

to the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.3 in Exhibit

P1A. Therefore, reading Exhibits P1A and P1B together

with the oral evidence of P.W.1, it has come out in

evidence that P.W.3 sustained the injuries on the night

of 27

th

June,1997. Therefore,the submission that P.W. 3

could not have been present at the place of occurrence

cannot be accepted.

13.We come to the rest of the contentions. It must be

stated that evidence of P.W.3 as an eye witness was

cogent in every respect, as he narrated the manner in

which the occurrence took place on the night of 27

th

June, 1997, the role played by each of the accused and

the subsequent events that occurred thereafter such as

the complaint which he preferred in the Saleha Police

Station, the registration of the FIR at 10:45p.m., the

subsequent visit of P.W. 15 to the place of occurrence

and the shifting of the body of the deceased to the

hospital for carrying out the post mortem by P.W.10. The

said part of the evidence of P.W. 3, as an eye witness

account was fully supported by the version of P.W.6, and

PAGE NO. 10 of 17

Page 11 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

also fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 11

who reached the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts

of P.Ws. 3 and 6.

14.The contention raised on behalf of the appellants

was that P.W. 15 was not truthful in registering the FIR

as well as launching the prosecution case against the

appellants inasmuch as according to P.W. 5, the

Constable who shifted the body of the deceased to the

hospital in his evidence stated that there was a short

post mortem report issued by the Doctor which he

delivered at the Police Station and that thereafter in

consultation with the so-called eye witness Ranganath

Sharma who was not examined for no good reasons and who

had a grudge against the appellants who all belonged to

same community, the appellants were implicated in the

offence. Though in the first blush, such a contention

raised on behalf of the appellants appeared to be

appealing, when we refer to the various other contentions

raised in support of the said submission, we find no

substance in the said contention. First of all, we do

not find any serious discrepancy or infirmities in the

preparation of the statutory records as well as any

serious lacuna in the oral version of the witnesses

examined in support of the charges.

15.It was contended that in the Crime Details Form,

PAGE NO. 11 of 17

Page 12 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

Exhibit P7, which is a statutory form wherein there was

no mention as to the nature of weapons used as well as

the name of the so-called injured eye witness P.W.3 and

also the names of the accused though their names were

very much known to the prosecution as early as at

10:45p.m. on 27

th

June, 1997. When we consider the said

submission, we find that Form No. 2 is an enclosed Report

prepared by P.W. 15 in which in Column No.5 it is

specifically mentioned while referring to motive of the

crime either due to old enmity, it is mentioned “due to

old enmity, attacked with sharp weapon with intention to

kill”. Similarly, in Column No. 6, under the heading “

description of injured persons”, the name of deceased

alone has been mentioned and there is no reference to the

injured eye witness P.W.3. Insofar as the non-mention of

P.W. 3 in the said column is concerned, we have also

referred in detail as to how and why such a non-mention

would not in any way vitiate the case of the prosecution

by virtue of the other clinching evidence which

established the presence of P.W. 3 at the place of

occurrence and the same reason will hold good here as

well.

16.Insofar as Column No. 5 is concerned, it has been

duly noted as to the use of sharp weapon. When we looked

into Column No. 10 the place of incident, the description

PAGE NO. 12 of 17

Page 13 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

of the place, the facility of chimney which was available

and all other minute details have been noted. It must

also be stated that the said Form was prepared on the

basis of the visit made by P.W. 15, Investigating Officer

at 23:10 hours i.e. 11;10P.M. on 27

TH

June, 1997. In

fact, when we later made a further reference to Exhibit

P10 which is an application for carrying out the post

mortem on the dead body of the deceased, it contains

separate statements about the details of the dead body of

the deceased. The same was despatched at 7:00a.m. on

28

th

June, 1997 and was received at the mortuary by

7:30a.m. on the same day. We have also noted the time of

the existence of P1A and P1B which when read along with

the evidence of P.W.1 it is quite clear that the same

came into existence by 1:30a.m. on the intervening night

of 27

th

and 28

th

June, 1997.

17.Having regard to the above features, namely, the

registration of FIR at 10:45p.m. on 27

th

June, 1997; the

inspection made by P.W.15 at 11:10p.m. on the same date;

the sending of P.W. 3 for medical examination which was

concluded by 1:30a.m. on 28

th

June, 1997; and the

shifting of the body of the deceased from the place of

occurrence to the hospital by 7:30a.m. on 28

th

June, 1997

read along with the version of P.Ws. 3, 6 and other

supporting witnesses it was sufficiently established that

PAGE NO. 13 of 17

Page 14 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

the occurrence took place as spoken to by P.W. 3, 6 and

others and the involvement of the appellants was,

therefore, fully established.

18. With that we come to the submission relating to the

delay in forwarding of the Express Report to state that

the implication of the appellants was false. As has been

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the State,

even though the delay was quite apparent by virtue of

Exhibit D8, in the first place, it must be stated that

when there was overwhelming and incriminating evidence

both oral as well as documentary to support the case of

the prosecution, as regards registration of the FIR and

the subsequent investigation carried on coupled with the

arrest of the accused on 28

th

June, 1997 supported by

reference made in Exhibits P22 to P24 as well as Section

27 Reports under Exhibits P18 to 21, it must be held that

in spite of such minor discrepancies pointed out on

behalf of the appellants, the case of the prosecution

cannot be faulted. Therefore, the delay in forwarding

the Express Report to the Illaka Magistrate was

concerned, it must also be noted that in the evidence of

P.W. 15 he stated that in the Despatch Register on 27

th

June, 1997, itself a mention was made to the effect that

he handed it over to the Head Constable Narendra Chuahan

for delivering it to the Magistrate which cannot be

PAGE NO. 14 of 17

Page 15 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

doubted, inasmuch as, we do not find any suggestion

having been put to him that as to what transpired after

he directed the said Head Constable to deliver it to the

Illaka Magistrate. Further, the Illaka Magistrate was

in Panna, which is 60 kms. away from the place of

occurrence. In any event, even assuming the delay did

really happen in forwarding the Express Report, we find

that such a delay has not caused any serious prejudice to

the appellants. In this context, reliance was placed on

the decisions of this Court reported in Pala Singh v.

State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640, para 8 State of

Karnataka v. Moin Patel (1996) 8 SCC 167 Paras 15 and 16,

Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of

Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421 Paras 29 and 36, which

decisions fully support the stand of the respondents. We

only refer to the last of the said decisions wherein in

paras 29 an 36 it has been held as under:-

“29. It is not that as if every delay

in sending the report to the Magistrate

would necessarily lead to the inference

that the FIR has not been lodged at the

time stated or has been ante-timed or

ante-dated or investigation is not fair

and forthright. Every such delay is not

fatal unless prejudice to the accused is

shown. The expression “forthwith”

mentioned there in does not mean that

the prosecution is required to explain

delay of every hour in sending the FIR

to the Magistrate. In a given case, if

number of dead and injured persons is

very high, delay in dispatching the

report is natural. Of course, the same

PAGE NO. 15 of 17

Page 16 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

is to be sent within reasonable time in

the prevalent circumstances.

36. The evidence of the stamped

witness must be given due weightage as

his presence on the place of occurrence

cannot be doubted. His statement is

generally considered to be very reliable

and it is unlikely that he has spared

the actual assailant in order to falsely

implicate someone else. The testimony

of an injured witness has its own

relevancy and efficacy as he has

sustained injuries at the time and place

of occurrence and this lends support to

his testimony that he was present at the

time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony

of an injured witness is accorded a

special status in law. Such a witness

comes with a built-in guarantee of his

presence at the scene of the crime and

is unlikely to spare his actual

assailant(s) in order to falsely

implicate someone. “Convincing evidence

is required to discredit an injured

witness.” Thus, the evidence of an

injured witness should be relied upon

unless there are grounds for the

rejection of his evidence on the basis

of major contradictions and

discrepancies therein. (Vide Abdul

Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC

259; Kailas v. State of Maharashtra

(2011) 1 SCC 793; Durbal v. State of

U.P. (2011) 2 SCC 676 and State of U.P.

v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324.)”

19. As far as minor discrepancies noted and pointed out

by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, here

again we find that such discrepancies does not in any way

seriously impinge on the judgment impugned in these

appeals.

20.As far as the submissions made based on the

PAGE NO. 16 of 17

Page 17 Crl.A. No. 2110 of 2009 & Anr.

injuries, we do not find any scope to interfere with the

decision in the impugned judgment on that score inasmuch

as on a detailed reading of evidence of P.W. 10, we find

that his evidence fully supported the case of the

prosecution in regard to the nature of injuries inflicted

upon the deceased on his hand by the appellants and it

was also further supported by the weapons which were

recovered at the instance of the appellants. For all the

above reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals

and the same are dismissed.

…...................................J

[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

…...................................J

[UDAY UMESH LALIT]

NEW DELHI

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015.

PAGE NO. 17 of 17