Brief Facts
- The accused challenged their conviction under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the interested injured eye-witness can be discredited in case of proved previous enmity between the deceased and accused persons?
- Whether previous enmity can be a motive for false implication?
- Whether non-explanation of major injuries to the accused can be fatal to the case of prosecution?
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR can be fatal to the case of the prosecution?
Held
- The Apex Court acquitted the accused persons as they were not named in the merg report, panchanama and spot panchnama and their name for first time surfaced in the FIR, which was lodged with delay. The Court further held that the Appellants cannot be convicted merely on the basis of testimony of the interested eye witnesses without any sufficient corroboration.
- The witnesses are also interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are close relatives of the deceased. There was previous enmity between the two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come on record. As observed by this Court in the case of Ramashish Ray v. Jagdish Singh, 2005 10 SCC 498 previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
- No doubt that mere delay in registering FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The effect of delay in lodging the FIR would differ in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, admittedly, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar had received grievous injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution. A specific defence has been taken by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar that when he was coming after consuming liquor, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1). Thereafter, he went to the Police Station along with accused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde, Ashwini and Vinod, whereafter he was referred for medical treatment. Looking at the injuries of accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, it appears difficult that he could have taken part in the second part of the incident. The prosecution has suppressed the first report lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) as well as by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. If Naresh Kumar was examined at 11.45 PM, the police must have had some information about the incident at least by 11.00 PM. As such, there is a delay of at least four hours in lodging the FIR.
- The court held that non-explanation of injuries can be fatal to the case of prosecution where the injuries are not minor or superficial.
Relevant Para No.
- 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35