2013 (5) TMI 1052 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 141 'third' vis-à-vis Section 149 IPC.
2. Delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate.
3. Impact of communal tension on the conviction.
4. Alleged lacunae in the prosecution's case.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Section 141 'third' vis-à-vis Section 149 IPC:
The court addressed the interpretation of Section 141 'third' and its relation to Section 149 IPC. It was argued that the term "other offence" in Section 141 'third' should only relate to offences similar to mischief or criminal trespass. However, the court rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that the term "other offence" includes all offences punishable under the IPC. The court emphasized that Section 40 IPC defines "offence" broadly, and thus, the term in Section 141 'third' should be understood to encompass any offence punishable under the IPC. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147, and 148 IPC were upheld.

2. Delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate:
The court examined the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, which was sent three days after the incident. It was argued that this delay could indicate an antedated FIR. However, the court found no prejudice caused to the accused due to this delay. It referenced previous judgments, stating that unless the delay causes prejudice or affects the investigation's integrity, it does not vitiate the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the FIR was recorded promptly, and the investigation commenced without delay.

3. Impact of communal tension on the conviction:
The appellants argued that communal tension in the village led to their false implication. The court noted that there was no substantial evidence to support this claim. The investigating officer's statement about communal tension was not corroborated by any other evidence. The court found that the claim of communal tension was a desperate and meritless argument, as it was not substantiated by any witnesses or records.

4. Alleged lacunae in the prosecution's case:
The appellants raised several points alleging deficiencies in the prosecution's case, such as the delay in filing the FIR, non-examination of independent witnesses, and non-recovery of bullets or pellets. The court found these arguments unconvincing. It noted that the injured witnesses' testimonies were credible and supported by medical evidence. The court also stated that the absence of independent witnesses did not undermine the prosecution's case, as the injured witnesses' accounts were consistent and reliable. The court dismissed the contention that the non-recovery of bullets or pellets affected the case, as the evidence of firearm injuries was well-established.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts. The court directed the appellant Soma, who was on bail, to surrender before the Magistrate to serve the remaining sentence.