2004 (4) TMI 656 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in recording the FIR.
2. Non-examination of vital witnesses.
3. Credibility of eye-witnesses (PWs 5 and 6).
4. Application of Section 34 IPC.
5. Non-production of documents and its impact.
6. Allegations of pressure on PW-6 to depose falsely.
7. Equal treatment of prosecution and defence witnesses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in recording the FIR:
The appellate court noted that the informant's Fardbayan was recorded at 10:00 a.m. on 22.1.1999, and the inquest report was prepared at 1925 hours on the same day by an Executive Magistrate. The post-mortem was conducted at 2200 hours. The High Court concluded that the Fardbayan was not ante-timed, supporting its finding with evidence on record. Thus, the plea that the FIR was delayed was dismissed.

2. Non-examination of vital witnesses:
The defence argued that the non-production of the hospital register and the non-examination of the Warden and Head Warden cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case. However, the court found that the absence of these documents and witnesses did not dilute the evidentiary value of the oral testimonies of PWs 5 and 6. The High Court held that no prejudice was caused to the accused by the non-examination of these witnesses.

3. Credibility of eye-witnesses (PWs 5 and 6):
The trial court relied heavily on the testimonies of PWs 5 and 6, who were eye-witnesses. The defence questioned their presence at the scene and highlighted inconsistencies in their statements. Despite this, the High Court found their testimonies credible after deep scrutiny. The court noted that no material inconsistency was elicited during cross-examination that could discard their evidence. The court also addressed the alleged criminal antecedents of the witnesses, stating that their evidence should not be discarded if found truthful and credible otherwise.

4. Application of Section 34 IPC:
The defence argued that Section 34 IPC was wrongly applied as there was no specific role attributed to any of the accused except Anil Sharma. The court explained that Section 34 IPC deals with joint liability in the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention. The court found that the evidence established a common intention among the accused, justifying the application of Section 34 IPC. The court cited previous judgments to support its interpretation and concluded that the section was rightly applied.

5. Non-production of documents and its impact:
The court addressed the non-production of certain documents, such as the hospital register, and found that this did not affect the credibility of the oral testimonies. The High Court noted that the defence had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses extensively, and no material inconsistency was found to discard their evidence.

6. Allegations of pressure on PW-6 to depose falsely:
PW-6 made an application stating that his initial testimony was given under pressure. The trial court and the High Court both found this claim to be vague and without substance. The High Court noted that PW-6 did not specifically name anyone who allegedly pressured him. The court also found no cogent reason to accept the prayer for re-examination of PW-6, considering it an afterthought.

7. Equal treatment of prosecution and defence witnesses:
The defence argued that different yardsticks were applied to the prosecution and defence witnesses. The High Court, however, conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence from both sides and concluded that the evidence of the defence witnesses was not credible. The court emphasized that the trial court had carefully analyzed the evidence before recording the conviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no infirmity in the conclusions reached by the lower courts. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were affirmed. The court's detailed analysis of the issues, including the credibility of witnesses, application of Section 34 IPC, and the alleged delay in recording the FIR, supported its decision to dismiss the appeals.