2011 (4) TMI 1529 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal, delay in lodging FIR, evidence of eyewitness, recording of statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

Appeal against Acquittal:
The appellant, along with two others, was initially acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to a series of appeals. The Supreme Court ultimately reviewed the case to determine if the High Court's interference was justified based on the evidence and the principle of perversity in trial judgments.

Delay in Lodging FIR:
The defense argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting manipulation to cover up the delay. However, the Supreme Court clarified that a FIR is always recorded at the police station, not at the site of the incident. The timing of the statements and the formal FIR registration were found to be reasonable, with the post-mortem report also supporting the timely handling of the case.

Evidence of Eyewitness:
The eyewitness, PW-4, the mother of the deceased, provided crucial testimony regarding the incident. Despite challenges to her credibility, the Court found her account consistent and supported by other witnesses. The Court highlighted her actions during the incident, her relationship with the victim, and the corroboration from other witnesses, strengthening the prosecution's case.

Recording of Statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.:
The defense raised concerns about the perfunctory recording of statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Court acknowledged the importance of these statements but noted that no objections were raised earlier in the appellate process. Without evidence of prejudice to the appellant due to the recording process, the Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal and convict the appellant based on a thorough review of the evidence and legal principles.