2006 (5) TMI 555 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Challenged the reversal of acquittal and thereby convicting - gun shot injury - High Court referred to the Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence - HELD THAT - The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 But P.W.3 had changed his statement regarding place of occurrence where Chatarvati had sustained injuries. The ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the Ram Gopal clearly belied the statements of P.Ws. 1 2 and 3. The High Court however held that P.Ws.1 and 2 were not related to the complainant. We may notice that admittedly the accused No. 6 was not carrying any weapon. He admittedly had a dispute with Veer Singh. Veer Singh accompanied the complainant to the police station. No role had been attributed to the said accused. It is not clear as to why he was implicated. He did not have any dispute with the deceased namely. Ram Gopal and Chatarvati. The prosecution did not lead any evidence as to why he would join the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in commission of the crime. Similarly appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were cousins. Except making a statement that they had been carrying some country made pistols and fired from their respective weapons no evidence has been brought on record to that effect. We also fail to understand as to why the Investigating Officer who took over the investigation from P.W.7 and who had investigated only for 8 days had not been examined. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution in this regard. The version of the prosecution is that the lands belonging to P.Ws.2 and 3 were half a kilometer away and they do not have any field near the field of the deceased. There was no standing crops in the field. The view of the Trial Court having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case was therefore a possible view and as such we need not go into the other contentions as regard the motive or time of death vis-a-vis the medical opinion etc. Thus we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the view of the Trial Court was wholly perverse and could not be sustained on me materials brought on record by the prosecution. This appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ante-timing and ante-dating of the First Information Report (FIR).
2. Exact time of occurrence.
3. Validity of injuries on P.W.1.
4. Reliability of evidence from chance witnesses.
5. Support of medical evidence for the prosecution case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ante-timing and Ante-dating of the FIR:
The Trial Court held that the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated, noting that although the FIR was said to have been lodged at 00.25 hours on 13.4.1992, it was received by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate only on 18.4.1992. The High Court reversed this finding, stating that the delay in receiving the FIR by the Magistrate did not necessarily invalidate it. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized the importance of prompt lodging and forwarding of the FIR as per Section 157 Cr.P.C. and Article 21 of the Constitution, which mandates that the FIR should be sent to the Court within 24 hours. The unexplained delay in this case raised doubts about the authenticity of the FIR.

2. Exact Time of Occurrence:
The Trial Court found that the exact time of the occurrence was not proven, while the High Court disagreed. The Supreme Court noted that the medical evidence suggested the death occurred around 10 p.m. on 12.4.1992, which did not align with the prosecution's timeline. The lack of clarity on the exact time of the incident further weakened the prosecution's case.

3. Validity of Injuries on P.W.1:
The Trial Court questioned the injuries on P.W.1, suggesting they might be self-inflicted. The High Court dismissed this, but the Supreme Court found merit in the Trial Court's skepticism. The medical examination of P.W.1 showed a lacerated wound without any pellet, which contradicted the claim of a gunshot injury. The delayed X-ray and absence of the X-ray plate in court further cast doubt on the injury's authenticity.

4. Reliability of Evidence from Chance Witnesses:
The Trial Court found the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were chance witnesses, unreliable. The High Court overturned this, but the Supreme Court supported the Trial Court's view, noting inconsistencies and the possibility of these witnesses being related to the deceased. The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to explain why key witnesses like Veer Singh, who accompanied P.W.1 to the police station, were not examined.

5. Support of Medical Evidence for the Prosecution Case:
The Trial Court held that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's narrative. The Supreme Court agreed, pointing out discrepancies between the medical findings and the prosecution's account of the incident. The direction and nature of the gunshot wounds on the deceased did not match the described circumstances of the shooting.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court's judgment. The Trial Court's findings were reasonable and based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, discharging the appellants from their bail bonds.