9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 870 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - Offence punishable u/s 120B r/w Section 302 Indian Penal Code - inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR - Time of occurrence cannot be validly related to the expert medical evidence - Plea of Alibi - Challenge the Conviction Judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court - HELD THAT - It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases, but in the given circumstances of a case, delay in lodging the FIR can be one of the factors which corrode the credibility of the prosecution version. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground by itself for throwing away the entire prosecution case. The Court has to seek an explanation for delay and check the truthfulness of the version put forward. If the Court is satisfied, then the case of the prosecution cannot fail on this ground alone. Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. V. Manjula S. Agarwalla and Ors. 2005 (5) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT . It is a case where the ocular evidence of PW11 is corroborated by medical evidence and is also partially supported by the statement of PW10, the husband of the deceased. Thus, in our considered view, the statements of PW10 and PW11 cannot be said to be doubtful or which cannot be believed by the Court. Their presence at the place of occurrence was natural and what they have stated is not only plausible but completes the chain of events in the case of the prosecution. The accused in the present appeal had also taken the plea of alibi in addition to the defence that they were living in a village far away from the place of occurrence. This plea of alibi was found to be without any substance by the Trial Court and was further concurrently found to be without any merit by the High Court also. In order to establish the plea of alibi these accused had examined various witnesses. Some documents had also been adduced to show that the accused Pawan Kumar and Sunil Kumar had gone to New Subzi Mandi near the booth of DW-1 and they had taken mushroom for sale and had paid the charges to the market committee, etc. Referring to all these documents, the trial court held that none of these documents reflected the presence of either of these accused at that place. On the contrary the entire plea of alibi falls to the ground in view of the statements of PW-10 and PW-11. The statements of these witnesses have been accepted by the Courts below and also the fact that they have no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. Once, PW-10 and PW-11 are believed and their statements are found to be trustworthy, as rightly dealt with by the Courts below, then the plea of abili raised by the accused loses its significance. The proposition of law advanced by the counsel for the Appellants cannot be disputed. The fact of the matter remains that statement of Ratti Ram u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is part of the judicial record and could be used against Ratti Ram for convicting him, if the prosecution had proved its case in accordance with law. Ratti Ram, unfortunately, died during the pendency of the proceedings. The part of his statement that supports the case of the prosecution as well as the statement of PW-10 and PW-11 can be relied upon by the prosecution to a limited extent. This statement may not be used against the present accused as such, but the fact that the statement of Ratti Ram u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure supports the case of the prosecution cannot be wiped out from the record and would have its consequences in law. Without using the statement of Ratti Ram against these accused, the courts below have correctly relied upon the statement of PW-10 and PW-11 and the medical evidence. This finding recorded by the Courts cannot, therefore, be faulted with. The present accused have not been convicted on the basis of a mere suspicion. The prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by ocular, documentary and medical evidence. The bangles which were recovered from the place of occurrence and the injuries that were inflicted upon the body of the deceased clearly show that she struggled for life and was murdered at the hands of accused. Thus, it is not a case of mere suspicion. We have noticed that Pawan Kumar had preferred a separate appeal which came to be dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay as well as on merits. of course, dismissal of the SLP at the admission stage itself may not adversely affect the case of the present Appellants. We do not intend to dwell on this issue any further. We also do not propose to rely upon the dismissal of the SLP filed by Pawan Kumar since we have come to an independent conclusion on merits that the prosecution in the present case has been able to bring home the guilt of the Appellants-accused and the judgment of the High Court under appeal does not call for any interference. Thus, both the above appeals are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Acquittal under Sections 323 read with 34 and 342 IPC. 4. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). 5. Admissibility of evidence and recovery. 6. Role of the accused Jitender Kumar. 7. Plea of alibi. 8. Assessment of medical evidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 120B of the IPC: The Trial Court convicted all five accused under Section 120B IPC for conspiracy to commit murder. Jitender Kumar was also found guilty under Section 120B IPC for conspiring with the other accused. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction, noting that Jitender had a definite role in the conspiracy, as evidenced by PW-10's testimony and the recovery of the motorcycle used in the crime. 2. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC: The Trial Court convicted Sunil, Satish, Pawan, and Ratti Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Indra. The Supreme Court upheld these convictions, noting that the testimonies of PW-10 and PW-11, along with medical evidence, corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court also noted that the physical evidence, such as the injuries on Indra's body and the recovery of the rope used for strangulation, supported the conviction. 3. Acquittal under Sections 323 read with 34 and 342 IPC: The Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 323 read with 34 and 342 IPC. This acquittal was not challenged, and thus, it remained upheld. 4. Delay in lodging the FIR: The FIR was lodged at 4:30 p.m. on the day of the incident, which occurred between 1:00 to 1:30 a.m. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay, stating that the behavior of PW-11, who first went to his village to inform his family before reporting to the police, was understandable given the threats he faced. The Court held that the delay was not inordinate and did not affect the credibility of the prosecution's case. 5. Admissibility of evidence and recovery: Jitender's disclosure statement led to the recovery of the motorcycle used in the crime. The Supreme Court clarified that while the confession part of the statement was inadmissible, the recovery of the motorcycle was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court found no infirmity in the recovery process and held that it provided a link between Jitender and the crime. 6. Role of the accused Jitender Kumar: Jitender argued that he was not named in the FIR and had no motive for the crime. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, noting that PW-10's testimony clearly implicated Jitender in the conspiracy and execution of the murder. The Court held that the omission of Jitender's name in the FIR did not exonerate him, as his involvement was established through reliable evidence. 7. Plea of alibi: The accused Sunil and Satish claimed they were not present at the crime scene and presented an alibi. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, noting that the testimonies of PW-10 and PW-11 placed them at the scene. The Court held that the burden of proving the alibi was on the accused, which they failed to do convincingly. 8. Assessment of medical evidence: The defense argued that the presence of semi-digested food in Indra's stomach contradicted the prosecution's timeline of the murder. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the exact time of death could not be determined solely based on stomach contents. The Court emphasized that the medical evidence, when considered with other testimonies, supported the prosecution's timeline of the murder occurring between 1:00 to 1:30 a.m. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The appeals were dismissed, and the prosecution's case was found to be proven beyond reasonable doubt through a combination of eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and corroborative physical evidence.
|
