1992 (9) TMI 371 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.)
2. Credibility of eye-witnesses
3. Recovery of weapon (gandasi)
4. Motive for the crime
5. Acquittal of co-accused Baldev Singh
6. Consistency of evidence

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Delay in Lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.)
The learned Sessions Judge found the explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. unsatisfactory, noting that it was lodged approximately eight hours after the occurrence, which he deemed belated. However, the High Court disagreed, considering the distance of 10 miles to the Police Station and the time of night. The High Court found no inordinate delay, as the F.I.R. was lodged by 3:00 A.M., and a copy was received by the Taluka Magistrate by 9:00 A.M. the next morning. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court, finding no inordinate delay under the circumstances.

2. Credibility of Eye-Witnesses
The appellant's counsel argued that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, Jagir Singh (P.W. 1) and Achhar Singh (P.W. 2), should not be accepted as they were "chance witnesses" and related to the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge noted discrepancies in their testimonies but found them credible regarding the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh. The High Court upheld this view, noting the consistency in their evidence concerning the appellant. The Supreme Court also found the eye-witnesses' testimonies consistent and corroborated by other facts, such as the blood-stained turban and gandasi.

3. Recovery of Weapon (Gandasi)
The prosecution claimed that the appellant, Lakhwinder Singh, disclosed the location of the gandasi, which was recovered from a paddy field and found stained with blood. The appellant's counsel argued that this recovery could be easily maneuvered by the police. However, both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court found this recovery credible and corroborative of the eye-witnesses' testimonies. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the appellant could not explain the blood stains on the gandasi and his turban.

4. Motive for the Crime
The prosecution imputed a motive, alleging that the deceased had given up his job in Lakhwinder Singh's concern before the contract period and had not been paid his outstanding wages. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this motive but noted that motive is not an essential ingredient of the offense. The High Court found no reason to disbelieve the motive imputed by the prosecution. The Supreme Court did not find the absence of a motive to raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

5. Acquittal of Co-Accused Baldev Singh
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Baldev Singh due to discrepancies in the eye-witnesses' testimonies regarding his complicity. The High Court upheld this acquittal, giving him the benefit of the doubt. The appellant's counsel argued that this acquittal undermined the credibility of the eye-witnesses. However, both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court found the evidence against Lakhwinder Singh consistent and credible. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the acquittal of Baldev Singh did not affect the case against Lakhwinder Singh.

6. Consistency of Evidence
Both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court found the evidence against Lakhwinder Singh consistent and credible. The Supreme Court also found the eye-witnesses' testimonies convincing and corroborated by other established facts, such as the blood-stained gandasi and turban. The Supreme Court noted that the testimonies should not be discarded simply because the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased or had previous disputes with the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of Lakhwinder Singh, finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to serve out his sentence.