Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1020 OF 2004

Sheo Shankar Singh …. Appellant

VERSUS

State of U.P.   ….Respondent

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2004

Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu …. Appellant

VERSUS

State of U.P.   ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. These  appeals  arise  out  of  the  common  judgment  dated  

26.09.2003, by the High Court  of  Allahabad in Criminal  Appeal  

Nos.814 and 815 of 1981.

2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.814 of 1981 before the High Court is  

the appellant  before this  Court  in  Crl.A.No.1021 of  2004.  The  

second appellant in Crl.A.No.815 of 1981 before the High Court is  

the appellant  before this  Court  in  Crl.A.No.1020 of  2004.  The  

appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004, as well as one Harihar Singh  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           1 of 21

Page 2

were tried in Sessions Trial No.164 of 1979 and the appellant in  

Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004, was tried in Sessions Trial No.228 of 1979.  

All the accused were charged for an offence under Section 302  

read  with  Section  34  of  I.P.C.  The  present  appellant  in  

Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004, as well as the appellant in Crl.A.No.1021 of  

2004 were further charged for an offence under Section 379 of  

I.P.C.  All the three accused were awarded life imprisonment for  

the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and  

the present appellants in these two appeals were further awarded  

two years  rigorous imprisonment  for  the charge under Section  

379 of I.P.C.  When Crl.A.No.815 of 1981 was pending before the  

High  Court,  the  first  appellant  Harihar  Singh  expired  and  his  

appeal, therefore, stood abated as against him as per the order of  

the High Court dated 11.02.2002.

3. It is in the above stated background, as on date, the appeal  

relating to Sheo Shankar Singh, the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of  

2004 and Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu, appellant in Crl.A.No.1021 of  

2004, only survive for consideration.

4. As the story of the prosecution goes, on 13.06.1979 at 3.30  

p.m. at Badhwa Chau Muhanion Kachcha Road, by the side of the  

godown of the Irrigation Department near the hovel of Vinod, the  

deceased Lorik was travelling along with P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar his  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           2 of 21

Page 3

son, in a motorcycle bearing No.UTH 1287 as a pillion rider.  The  

accused  Ranjit  Singh  along  with  his  father  Harihar  Singh,  his  

brother Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu and cousin Sheo Shankar Singh  

alleged  to  have  pounced  upon  P.W.1  Rakesh  Kumar  and  the  

deceased Lorik and stopped their motorcycle by catching hold of  

its  carrier.   While  P.W.1  attempted  to  drive  fast,  the  accused  

Harihar  Singh  exhorted  his  associates  to  kill  the  deceased,  

whereupon, Ranjit  Singh is stated to have fired a shot and the  

same hit  the deceased Lorik  on his  back.   After  receiving  the  

injuries,  the  deceased  Lorik  stated  to  have  jumped  from  the  

motorcycle  and ran away shouting for  help.   As the deceased  

Lorik jumped from the motorcycle, P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar lost his  

balance, fell  down and got his leg injured.  Ranjit Singh armed  

with  a revolver  and the remaining three accused with  country  

made pistols, stated to have attacked the deceased Lorik by firing  

at him with their weapons and on receiving the injuries, Lorik fell  

down a few paces ahead and when Ranjit Singh fired again, the  

deceased  is  stated  to  have  succumbed  to  the  injuries  

instantaneously.   Thereafter,  Ranjit  Singh  and  the  appellants  

stated to have fled away from the scene of  occurrence in the  

motorcycle belonging to P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar while Harihar Singh  

stated to have ran away from the scene of occurrence.   

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           3 of 21

Page 4

5. On hearing the hue and cry,  Ramjit  (PW3) and Shyam Raj,  

uncles of P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar and one Sheo Narain, who stated  

to have witnessed the incident, reached the spot.  P.W.1 lodged  

the F.I.R. at Kotwali Police Station at 4.00 P.M., on the same day.  

The police registered a case in the General Diary and the same is  

marked as Exs.Ka12 and Ka13.  The inquest report prepared by  

the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) was marked as Ex.Ka14. The site  

plan map was marked as Ex.Ka19.  Dr.Virendra Srivastava at the  

District Hospital, Ghazipur conducted the autopsy on the body of  

the deceased on 14.06.1979 at 12.45 p.m.  Blood stained clothes  

and earth was sent for Serologist opinion and the blood group was  

noted as ‘B’ as per Exs.Ka32 and Ka33.     

6. P.Ws.1 and 3, Rakesh Kumar and Ramjit son and brother of the  

deceased,  were  examined  as  eyewitnesses.  Dr.P.N.Tandon,  

Medical  Officer  at  Ghazipur  District  Hospital,  was examined as  

P.W.2. P.W.2 examined P.W.1 at 4.30 p.m. and the injury report  

was marked as Ex.Ka4.  The postmortem report issued by P.W.4  

Dr.Virendra Srivastava, was marked as Ex.Ka11.  In the Section  

313 questioning, while all  the other accused pleaded not guilty  

and  claimed  to  be  falsely  implicated  on  account  of  enmity,  

accused  Sheo  Shankar  Singh  contended  that  on  the  date  of  

occurrence, he had gone to attend a marriage in the house of  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           4 of 21

Page 5

D.W.1 Kanhaiya Singh at Singheri village, falling within the limits  

of Madganj Police Station, Ghazipur district.

7. Based on the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the Trial  

Court  convicted  the  accused.   Aggrieved  over  the  same,  they  

preferred appeals before the High Court in Crl.A.Nos.814 and 815  

of 1981 and the High Court having dismissed the appeals, the  

appellants are before us.

8. We heard Mr.Mahavir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing  

for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004 and Mr.Nagendra Rai  

learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  in  

Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004.  The State was represented by Mr.Vivek  

Vishnoi learned Standing Counsel for the State.

9. The sum and substance of the submissions made on behalf of  

the appellants was that the non-recovery of the weapons and the  

motorcycle  disproves  the  case  of  the  prosecution.  The  non-

examination  of  the  so-called  other  eyewitnesses  whose  

statements were recorded under Section 161 of  Cr.P.C.,  would  

belie the case of the prosecution.  The non-consideration of the  

evidence of P.W.8 about the motorcycle, also vitiates the case of  

the  prosecution.   The  serious  discrepancies,  such  as  non-

mentioning  of  the  crime  number  and  name  in  the  vital  

documents,  as  admitted  by  the  Investigating  Officer,  create  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           5 of 21

Page 6

serious doubt about the case put-forth by the prosecution.  Since,  

admittedly the deceased Lorik was a history-sheeter and since no  

independent eyewitnesses were examined who were stated to be  

present at the time of occurrence, it will have to be held that the  

prosecution roped in the appellants in a case of  blind murder.  

Therefore, it was contended for all the above discrepancies and  

the evidence of the prosecution, not been properly appreciated  

either  by  the Trial  Court  or  by the High Court,  the judgments  

impugned are liable to be set aside.  

10. As  against  the  above  submissions,  the  learned  Counsel  

appearing  for  the  State  would  point  out  that  none  of  the  

submissions made on behalf of the appellants merit consideration,  

inasmuch as, the Trial Court, as well as, the High Court have met  

each  one  of  the  submissions  effectively,  while  rejecting  those  

submissions.

11. The  learned counsel  appearing  for  the  State  also  took us  

through the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 and 3, the evidence  

of the Doctor P.W.2, the injuries sustained by P.W.1, as well as the  

deceased and submitted that in the case on hand, the case of the  

prosecution is supported by medical evidence as well and that,  

the motive for the crime has been substantially established by the  

prosecution.   The  learned  State  counsel,  therefore,  contended  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           6 of 21

Page 7

that none of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel  

appearing for the appellants merited any consideration.

12. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the respective  

appellants,  the  counsel  for  the  State  and  having  perused  the  

impugned judgments of the High Court, as well as that of the Trial  

Court  and  all  other  material  papers,  before  considering  the  

submissions made on behalf of the appellants, it will be necessary  

to refer to the motive for the crime, as well as the injuries found  

on  the  body  of  the  deceased  and  P.W.1  for  appreciating  the  

submissions.

13. As  far  as  the  motive  is  concerned,  according  to  the  

prosecution,  one  Raja  of  Ausanganj,  a  Zamindar,  owned  huge  

properties  with  whom one Mukhchand,  father  of  the  deceased  

Lorik, was employed as a gardener.  On being satisfied with the  

services of the said Mukhchand, the Zamindar gave him a land for  

raising construction. Further as salary could not be paid to the  

said Mukhchand by the Zamindar, the Zamindar allowed him to  

segregate  six  bighas  of  land  from the  forest  belonging to  the  

Zamindar  for  cultivation.   The  said  Mukhchand  cleared  off  six  

bighas  of  land  from  the  forest  and  stated  to  have  started  

cultivating the same and after his death, his son one Basu, started  

working with the Zamindar.  Since the price of the land increased  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           7 of 21

Page 8

by metes and bounds, the Zamindar wanted to reclaim the land,  

which ended in a prolonged litigation and ultimately the deceased  

and his brother stated to have succeeded in retaining the land.  

Irked by  the above result,  the Zamindar  who  was nurturing  a  

grievance  stated  to  have  set  up  the  accused  who  were  local  

gundas to  get  rid  of  the deceased,  his  brother  and his  family  

members from the lands.   It is stated that the accused started  

intimidating the family members of the deceased, which gave rise  

to frequent confrontation among the accused party and the party  

of the deceased, who wanted to protect their property.

14. On  13.08.1974,  the deceased along with  his  associates  is  

stated to have assaulted the accused Harihar Singh and a criminal  

case was also lodged against him.  It  was in the above stated  

background, it is stated that the accused party headed by Harihar  

Singh, who were nurturing a long-standing grievance against the  

deceased, engineered a plot to eliminate him, which resulted in  

the ultimate murder of the deceased.  The above fact was brought  

about in evidence through P.W.3 and the Courts below have noted  

that while cross-examining him, the said narration of facts relating  

to the motive could be ascertained.

15. Keeping the above factors  in  mind and the alleged crime  

committed by the appellants, when we deal with the submissions  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           8 of 21

Page 9

of  the  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants,  

according to the learned counsel, it was a case of blind murder  

since the deceased Lorik himself was a history-sheeter, which has  

come  out  in  the  evidence  of  P.W.7,  the  Investigating  Officer  

himself and, therefore, the appellants and the other accused were  

conveniently roped in taking advantage of the earlier tussle as  

between  the  appellants  and  the  deceased.   According  to  the  

learned senior counsel, as per the evidence of the Investigating  

Officer  himself,  at  the  time  of  inspection  of  the  place  of  

occurrence,  apart  from  P.Ws.  1  and  3,  the  statement  of  one  

Somraj and Shiv Narayan were recorded, but both of them were  

not produced before the Court.  It was, therefore, contended that  

by examining the close relatives of the deceased alone and by not  

examining those independent witnesses, it will  have to be held  

that the case of the prosecution was manipulated and that the  

reliance placed upon the so called eye witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1 and  

3, should not have formed the basis for the ultimate conviction of  

the appellants.

16. In  fact,  the  Trial  Court,  as  well  as  the  High  Court  have  

specifically dealt with this very contention.  The Trial Court, while  

considering the said submission, has noted that according to the  

investigating officer, when he approached those other witnesses,  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           9 of 21

Page 10

none of them were prepared to come and give evidence in the  

Court  and  that  they  were  not  even prepared to  disclose  their  

names and that having regard to the background of the accused  

party who were notorious criminals, none of them were prepared  

to risk their life and give evidence in the Court.  The Trial Court  

has also noted that  the crime committed by the appellants in  

shooting the deceased to death in the broad day light was so  

gruesome,  there  was  a  fear  complex  set  in  the  minds  of  the  

people around that place and, therefore, mere non-examination of  

the other independent witnesses in the absence of any lacuna in  

the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 3, cannot be held to be disastrous to  

the case of the prosecution.  The said view was fully approved by  

the High Court and, in our considered opinion, there is no reason  

to take a different view than what has been held by the Courts  

below.   The  said  submission  of  the  learned  senior  counsel,  

therefore, stands rejected.

17. It  was then contended that the material  evidence viz.,  the  

motorcycle in which the deceased is stated to have travelled as a  

pillion rider along with his son P.W.1, was not produced and that  

in  that  context,  the  evidence  of  P.W.8  was  not  properly  

appreciated by the Courts below.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           10 of 21

Page 11

18. When  we  refer  to  the  evidence  of  P.W.8,  we  find  that  

according to him, he was the original owner of the vehicle and  

that  he  sold  the  said  vehicle  to  the  deceased,  which  was  

supported by Exs.Ka29, Ka30 and Ka31.  In the cross-examination,  

he stated that the vehicle was in the possession of the deceased  

for 10 to 12 days and that due to non-payment of the remaining  

amount,  he  took  possession  from  the  deceased  and  that  

ultimately  he  dismantled  the  vehicle  and  disposed  it  of  in  

Kabarkhana.

19. The evidence of P.W.8, in so far as it related to the sale of the  

vehicle in favour of the deceased is concerned, the same is borne  

out  by  Exs.Ka29,  Ka30  and  Ka31.  Ex.Ka29  is  a  receipt  for  

Rs.6,000/-. Ex.Ka30 is delivery proof by way of information to the  

Regional Transport Officer and Ex.Ka31 is the transfer document.  

Therefore, going by the initial statements of P.W.8 and the above  

referred three documents, the fact was brought forth without any  

scope of contradiction that the vehicle was sold to the deceased  

Lorik. Insofar as the statement of P.W.8 that due to non-payment,  

he took back the vehicle is concerned, except his ipse dixit, there  

is nothing on record to support the said version.  So far as non-

production  of  the  vehicle  is  concerned,  even according  to  the  

prosecution, the vehicle was stealthily removed by the accused  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           11 of 21

Page 12

after  committing  the  crime  of  killing  of  the  deceased.   P.W.8  

stated  that  the  vehicle  was  dismantled  and  disposed  of  in  

Kabarkhana.   Therefore,  if  the  prosecution  was  not  able  to  

produce the vehicle for the above stated reasons, no fault can be  

found with the prosecution on that score.  When it is brought out  

in evidence through P.W.1, as well as P.W.3 and the injury found  

on the body of P.W.1 as mentioned by the Doctor who examined  

him viz., P.W.2 that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 were due to  

his fall from a running motorcycle, we do not find any discrepancy  

in  the  evidence  placed  before  the  Court  in  that  respect.  

Therefore, the said submission of the learned senior counsel also  

does not impress upon us to take a different view than what has  

been held by the Courts below.

20. As  far  as  the  plea  made  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  in  

Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004 that he was not present at the time of the  

occurrence and that he was attending a wedding in the place of  

D.W.1 is concerned, we find that it was a desperate attempt made  

on behalf of the appellant by raising the plea of alibi, which was  

rightly rejected by the Courts below.

21. We have perused the evidence of D.W.1.  We find that his  

evidence was not precise in its substance in order to rely upon the  

same for  accepting the plea of  alibi.   According to  D.W.1,  his  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           12 of 21

Page 13

daughter got married on 12.06.1979 and that the marriage party  

had arrived on 12.06.1979 and left his house on 14.06.1979.  As  

far  as  the  appellant  in  Crl.A.No.1020  of  2004  is  concerned,  

according  to  D.W.1,  though  he  was  not  related  to  him,  his  

acquaintance  was  through  his  grandfather  and  his  father  and  

because of the said long standing friendship, the appellant stayed  

in his house at 12.30 hours on 13.06.1979 and left his house only  

by  5.00  P.M.  on  the  said  date.   D.W.1  was  tendered  for  

examination on 03.03.1981 i.e., nearly 1½ years after the date of  

occurrence.  In the cross examination, he admitted that nearly  

400 people attended the wedding and that he is not in a position  

to  state  as  to  who  came  at  what  time  and  remained  in  the  

premises, where the wedding was held.  He would further admit  

that  from  the  village  to  which  the  appellant  belonged  viz.,  

Ghazipur, except the appellant, nobody else were known to him.  

He also claimed that the appellant gifted Rs.51/- to his daughter,  

which was recorded in a sheet of paper.  He is stated to have  

mentioned about the said fact to many others in his village.   

22. When  we  considered  the  above  version  of  D.W.1  in  the  

absence of any proof of wedding taken place either by way of  

production of invitation card or the proof of registration of  the  

marriage of his daughter with any statutory authority or any other  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           13 of 21

Page 14

supporting evidence, it  will  be highly risky to rely upon such a  

feeble evidence in order to accept the plea of alibi to discharge  

the appellant from the alleged crime.  It will have to be borne in  

mind that the eyewitnesses to the incident specifically made a  

mention about the presence of the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of  

2004 and the overt act alleged against him in the matter of killing  

of the deceased.  The appellant was closely related to the first  

accused  and  was  stated  to  have  been  hand  in  glove  in  the  

elimination of the deceased.  Having regard to the various missing  

links  and lack  of  sufficient  materials  to  support  the version of  

D.W.1, the Trial Court rightly rejected the said defence plea on  

behalf of the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004, which was also  

approved by the High Court in the impugned judgment.  We are  

also  fully  convinced  of  the  above  conclusion  and  we  are  not  

inclined to disturb the same.

23. Submissions were made on behalf of the appellants that there  

were  serious  lacunae  in  the  registration  of  the  F.I.R.  and  its  

dispatch  and,  therefore,  the  Courts  below  should  not  have  

accepted the case of the prosecution.

24. When we perused the F.I.R. placed before us in the additional  

documents, we find that while the occurrence had taken place at  

3.30 p.m. on 13.06.1979, the same was reported at 1600 hours on  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           14 of 21

Page 15

the same date.  The police station is hardly a mile away in the  

western direction of the place of occurrence.  It is also noted in  

the F.I.R that after registration, it was dispatched from the police  

station on 14.06.1979.

25. The learned counsel appearing for the State brought to our  

notice that as far as the dispatch is concerned, even as per the  

column found in the F.I.R., only the date of dispatch is required to  

be noted and not the time, as compared to the date and time to  

be recorded as regards the reporting of the crime.  Therefore, due  

to non-mentioning of the time of dispatch, no fault can be found  

as regards the registration of the F.I.R.   

26. The trial Court has noted that while the prosecution claimed  

that the occurrence took place at 3.30 P.M., the medical records  

and the evidence of  P.W.2 Dr.P.N.Tandon, discloses that  P.W.1  

was examined by him on the same day viz., 13.06.1979 at 4.30  

P.M.  The Doctor has noted that the injury was fresh and that it  

could  have  occurred  within  six-hour  duration.  The  Doctor  also  

specifically  answered to  a  question  put  to  him that  the  injury  

could have happened at 3.30 p.m. on that day.  In the course of  

cross examination, when the Doctor was asked as to how he was  

so  very  definite  as  to  the  freshness  of  the  injury,  the  Doctor  

explained by stating that the freshness of  the swelling can be  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           15 of 21

Page 16

known by the difference in the temperature at the spot of the  

swelling,  as  compared  to  the  temperature  in  the  rest  of  the  

portion  of  the  body.   The  Doctor  who  is  an  independent  

witness/officer can have no inner reason to depose against the  

appellants.  In the said circumstances, there can be no reason to  

doubt the registration of the F.I.R., as contended on behalf of the  

appellants.  The said contention of the appellants also, therefore,  

do not merit any consideration.

27. On behalf of the appellants, it was also contended that going  

by the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased and P.W.1 started from  

their residence as directed by the deceased towards the place of  

occurrence and that P.W.1 was not aware for what purpose the  

deceased  started  from the  house  and  was  proceeding  in  that  

direction.  The learned senior counsel contended that if in the said  

situation, the occurrence had taken place, there could have been  

no scope at all to invoke Section 34, as against the accused in  

Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004, against whom there was no specific overt  

act.  In that context, the learned senior counsel contended that  

while  it  was  specifically  alleged that  the  first  accused Harihar  

Singh and the other accused opened fire towards the deceased,  

there was no reference to the appellant in Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004  

to state that he used the weapon to the effect that he fired at the  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           16 of 21

Page 17

deceased.  The learned senior counsel referred to the evidence of  

P.W.1,  as  well  as  P.W.3 and pointed out  that  while  P.W.1 has  

stated  that  in  the  F.I.R.,  all  the  accused  fired  towards  the  

deceased, P.W.3 made it clear that out of the four accused, two  

alone indulged in firing and that the appellant in Crl.No.1021 of  

2004 viz., Sarvajit Singh did not involve himself in any such firing  

activity.  The learned senior counsel,  therefore, contended that  

when  out  of  several  persons,  only  one  person  opened  firing,  

common intention cannot be held to have been made out.  The  

learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Md.  

Rustam alias Rustam vs.  The State of Bihar reported in AIR  

2003 SC 562 for that purpose.

28. Having perused the evidence of P.W.3, we find that he did not  

state  that  all  the  accused,  including  Sarvajit  Singh  made  his  

brother Lorik to run, when Ranjit Singh was holding the revolver  

and the remaining three were holding country  made pistols  in  

their hands.  He further stated that out of the four persons, two  

were  firing  viz.,  Ranjit  Singh  and  Shiv  Shankar  Singh  and  on  

suffering  the  injuries  the  deceased  fell  down that  while  Ranjit  

Singh continued to fire and that where after the deceased died.  

After the above said firing and the death of the deceased, while  

Harihar Singh is stated to have proceeded towards South by foot,  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           17 of 21

Page 18

the other three stated to have fled away in  the motorcycle  in  

which  the  deceased  and  P.W.1  travelled.   Accepting  the  said  

version  of  P.W.3,  we find  that  there  was  a  specific  statement  

made to the effect that the deceased was made to run by all the  

four accused who were holding weapons and all the four of them  

were firing towards the deceased.  He would further state that  

while  initially  all  the  four  were  firing  towards  the  deceased,  

subsequently  two  of  them viz.,  Ranjit  Singh and Shiv  Shankar  

Singh, continued to fire towards the deceased and at the end,  

Ranjit Singh alone fired indiscriminately in order to ensure that  

the deceased succumbed to the injuries.  Therefore, it is not as if  

P.W.3  has  merely  stated that  except  two  of  the  accused,  the  

others did not fire at the deceased.  According to him, all the four  

accused opened fire towards the deceased, who started to run  

and after the initial firing, two of the accused continued to fire  

pursuant to which the deceased fell down and finally, Ranjit Singh  

ensured that the deceased lost his breath.   

29. Therefore, invoking of Section 34 was fully made out and the  

submissions  to  the  contrary  cannot  be  countenanced.   The  

decision  relied  upon  by  the  learned  senior  counsel,  therefore,  

does not in any way support the case of the appellants.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           18 of 21

Page 19

30. One other submission made on behalf of the appellants was  

that in the absence of any proof of forwarding the F.I.R. copy to  

the jurisdiction Magistrate, violation of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has  

crept in and thereby, the very registration of the F.I.R. becomes  

doubtful.  The said submission will have to be rejected, in as much  

as the F.I.R. placed before the Court discloses that the same was  

reported at 4.00 p.m. on 13.06.1979 and was forwarded on the  

very  next  day  viz.,  14.06.1979.   Further,  a  perusal  of  the  

impugned judgments of the High Court, as well as the Trial Court  

discloses that no case of any prejudice was shown nor even raised  

on behalf of the appellants based on alleged violation of Section  

157  Cr.P.C.   Time  and  again,  this  Court  has  held  that  unless  

serious  prejudice  was  demonstrated  to  have  been  suffered  as  

against  the  accused,  mere  delay  in  sending  the  F.I.R.  to  the  

Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on the  

case of the prosecution.  Therefore, the said submission made on  

behalf of the appellants cannot be sustained.  In this context, we  

would like to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Sandeep  

vs. State  of  Uttar  Pradesh reported  in  (2012)  6  SCC  107  

wherein  the  said  position  has  been  explained  as  under  in  

paragraph Nos.62 and 63 :

“62. It was also feebly contended on behalf of the   appellants  that  the  express  report  was  not   

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           19 of 21

Page 20

forwarded to  the Magistrate as  stipulated under  Section 157, Cr.P.C. instantaneously. According to  learned counsel FIR which was initially registered  on 17.11.2004 was given a number on 19.11.2004  as  FIR  No.116  of  2004  and  it  was  altered  on  20.11.2004 and was forwarded only on 25.11.2004  to the Magistrate. As far as the said contention is   concerned, we only wish to refer to the reported  decision of this Court in Pala Singh and Another v.   State of Punjab wherein this Court has clearly held   that  (SCC  p.645,  para  8)  where  the  FIR  was  actually  recorded  without  delay  and  the  investigation started on the basis of that FIR and  there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of   the Court then, however improper or objectionable   the delay in receipt of the report by the Magistrate  concerned be, in the absence of any prejudice to   the  accused  it  cannot  by  itself  justify  the  conclusion that the investigation was tainted and  the prosecution insupportable.  63. Applying the above ratio in Pala Singh to the  case on hand, while pointing out the delay in the   forwarding  of  the  FIR  to  the  Magistrate,  no  prejudice was said to have been caused to the  appellants by virtue of the said delay. As far as   the  commencement  of  the  investigation  is  concerned,  our  earlier  detailed  discussion  discloses that there was no dearth in that aspect.   In  such  circumstances  we  do  not  find  any   infirmity in the case of the prosecution on that   score.  In  fact  the  above  decision  was  subsequently followed in Sarwan Singh & Ors. Vs.  State of Punjab, Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar and  Aqeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.”

31. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find any  

merit  in  these  appeals.  The  appeals  fail  and  the  same  are  

dismissed.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           20 of 21

Page 21

32. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled and  

they  shall  be  taken  into  custody  forthwith  to  serve  out  the  

remaining part of sentence, if any.

………….……….…………………………..J.                          [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

   ...……….…….………………………………J.

               [Fakkir  Mohamed Ibrahim  Kalifulla]

New Delhi;  July 02, 2013.

Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004                                                           21 of 21