2002 (2) TMI 1355 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the first information report (FIR).
2. Time of death of the deceased.
3. Identity of the weapon of offence.
4. Identity of the eyewitness.
5. Credibility of the investigation.
6. Timing of witness statements under Section 162.
7. Admissibility of non-cognizable complaint.
8. Contradictions in witness testimonies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the First Information Report (FIR):
The trial court initially held that Exhibit 36, entry No. 20/1989 in the police station diary, recorded on the information given by the medical officer, was the first information report under Section 154 of the Code, not the complaint-FIR lodged by the complainant Ali Mohmed at Exhibit 30. The High Court found that this distinction did not materially affect the case, as no significant discrepancies were pointed out between the two documents. Both entries indicated the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the appellant.

2. Time of Death of the Deceased:
The trial court expressed doubts regarding the time of death, which it claimed cast doubt on the prosecution's story. However, the High Court found that the exact time of death did not exonerate the appellant, as the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses established that the incident occurred on 27th March 1989 at around 7.30 p.m., resulting in the injuries found on the deceased.

3. Identity of the Weapon of Offence:
The trial court doubted the identity of the weapon used (Dharia). The High Court, however, highlighted the recovery of the weapon, Article No. 9, from the appellant, which had human blood stains matching the blood group of the deceased. This evidence was supported by the serological report and the panchnama, corroborating the prosecution's case.

4. Identity of the Eyewitness:
The trial court questioned the identity of one witness, Mamudu @ Abdulla (PW9), suggesting that someone else was presented in his place. The High Court dismissed this doubt, finding no substantial evidence to support the trial court's conjecture.

5. Credibility of the Investigation:
The trial court found the investigation conducted by the investigating officer to be shaky and untruthful, creating doubt. The High Court disagreed, stating that defective investigation alone cannot justify acquittal if the overall evidence supports the prosecution's case.

6. Timing of Witness Statements under Section 162:
The trial court noted that some witness statements were recorded late, suggesting possible manipulation. The High Court found this concern unfounded, as the FIR was recorded promptly within 15 minutes of the occurrence, and a copy was furnished to the Magistrate within 24 hours, ruling out manipulation.

7. Admissibility of Non-Cognizable Complaint:
The trial court deemed a non-cognizable complaint lodged by A-1 inadmissible, as it was given during the investigation. The High Court did not find this point significant enough to affect the overall findings.

8. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies:
The trial court pointed to contradictions in witness testimonies, casting doubt on their veracity. The High Court found these contradictions to be minor and typical of truthful witnesses who do not make parrot-like statements. The High Court emphasized that these minor discrepancies did not undermine the core prosecution story.

Conclusion:
The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and found that the trial court's acquittal was based on conjectures and hypotheses rather than legal evidence. The High Court held that the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the murder, corroborated by eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.