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  7th 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  27th 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 27th

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 27th 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 28th June, 1997. The  learned  counsel  while  making  reference  to  the application for post mortem Exhibit P10 also dated 28th

June, 1997, pointed out that while the said application was presented to the Doctor at 7:30a.m. on 28th 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 27th 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 30th 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 28th June, 1997 and  the  subsequent  seizure  made  on  29th 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 27th 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 30th 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 27th/28th June,  1997  itself  noted  the  various  injuries sustained by him in Exhibit P1B based on the application made under Exhibit P1A dated 28th June,  1997  Exhibit P1B discloses the time as 1:30a.m. in the night on 28th

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 27th and 28th 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 27th 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  27th

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 27th 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 27TH 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 28th 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 27th and 28th June, 1997. 17. Having  regard  to  the  above  features,  namely,  the registration of FIR at 10:45p.m. on 27th 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  28th June,  1997;  and  the shifting of the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital by 7:30a.m. on 28th 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 28th 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 27th

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