9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1211 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of sentence for murder - Murder of a person with criminal history / history-sheeter - Assaulting the deceased by lathis and tabbal - Inordinate delay in filing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) - possibility of improvements thereby casting doubt on the version of the prosecution - testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution being contradictory - accused persons present at the scene of the crime or not - plea of alibi. Inordinate delay in filing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) - HELD THAT - The document itself records the time of incident as being 8.15 a.m. and the time of report as being 11.00 a.m. The testimony of PW-3 at whose instance the FIR was recorded, shows that out of fear and having sustained numerous injuries, he ran from the place of occurrence and hid in the house of Baisakhu Kewat and only emerged therefrom two hours later - In such a situation, delay in filing of the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution more so in view of the injuries sustained by him; the place of occurrence being a remote village area and that the version of events was dictated to the police by this witness only upon their reaching his place of shelter. To us it does not appear to be a case of prior consultation; discussion; deliberation or improvements. There are nothing emanating which would credibly suggest that the time gap between the occurrence of incidence and registration of the FIR is unjustified - Resultantly, the first contention of the convict appellants must necessarily be answered in the negative. Plea of alibi - HELD THAT - Both the defence witnesses do not conclusively establish the plea of alibi, based on the principle of preponderance of probability as their statements stand unsupported by any other corroborative evidence. Not only that, no reason stands explained in such testimony for A-9 having travelled from Bhalesur to Sundri in order to go to Sandi Bazar. It is a matter of record that A-9 is a resident of Bhalesur where he resided with his family. He owned farms in Sundri. The family of A-9 was not examined to substantiate the claim of such travel. For those reasons, we cannot believe the version testified to by DW-1 and DW-2 - for the plea of alibi to be established, something other than a mere ocular statement ought to have been present. After all, the prosecution has relied on the statement of eyewitnesses to establish its case against the convict-appellants leading to the unrefuted conclusion that convict-appellants were present on the spot of the crime and had indeed caused injuries unto the deceased as also PW-3 with Lathis and Tabbal on various and vital parts of their bodies. The prosecution case relies primarily on 3 witnesses whom, the Courts below have believed without exception. It is next urged that there are contradictions in the testimonies of three witnesses, hence, it would neither be appropriate nor safe to place reliance thereon. Having perused the same, we find them to be coherent on material facts such as the presence of the accused on the spot of the crime; the death of Chetram; a blast having taken place; and the accused being the assailants - there are no force in the contention that the testimonies relied on by the prosecution are inherently contradictory. It may be true that the deceased Chetram was a history-sheeter and had scores of criminal cases pending against him or cases in which he was involved. However, such fact is unsubstantiated on record for no detail whatsoever stands provided in respect of such cases involving the deceased - simply because the deceased had a chequered past which constituted several run-ins with the law, Courts cannot give benefit thereof, particularly when such claims are bald assertions, to those accused of committing such a person s murder. And in any event, such a plea is merely presumptuous. Thus, the charges levied against the accused, i.e., under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, IPC, and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, and the sentence corresponding thereto as awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, do not warrant interference of this Court. It may also be observed that the sentences awarded are in no manner excessive or disproportionate to the crimes for which the convict-appellants stand convicted. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) 2. Reliability of witness testimonies. 3. Deceased being a history-sheeter. 4. Plea of alibi by the accused. Summary: 1. Delay in Filing the First Information Report (F.I.R.): The appellants argued that the inordinate delay in filing the F.I.R. casts doubt on the prosecution's version. The Court noted that the F.I.R. was registered about two hours after the incident. The delay was attributed to PW-3, who was injured and hid in fear. The Court found that the delay was not unreasonable given the circumstances and injuries sustained by PW-3. The Court referenced precedents, emphasizing that the explanation for the delay was plausible and did not indicate prior consultation or improvements. 2. Reliability of Witness Testimonies: The appellants contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory and unreliable. The Court observed that the testimonies of PW-3, PW-16, and PW-17 were coherent on material facts such as the presence of the accused at the crime scene and the assault on the deceased. The Court found the witnesses to have deposed truthfully, with their testimonies inspiring confidence. The Court dismissed the argument that the witnesses were close relatives or interested parties, noting that their creditworthiness was unimpeachable. 3. Deceased Being a History-Sheeter: The appellants argued that the deceased was a history-sheeter with numerous cases against him, suggesting the possibility of other individuals wanting his elimination. The Court found this argument unsubstantiated, as no details of such cases were provided. The Court held that the deceased's past run-ins with the law did not warrant giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, especially when the claims were bald assertions. 4. Plea of Alibi by the Accused: The appellants claimed they were not present at the crime scene, presenting a plea of alibi. The Court referred to established principles regarding the plea of alibi, noting that the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish it with certainty. The Court found that the defence witnesses' statements did not conclusively establish the plea of alibi, as they were unsupported by corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had satisfactorily discharged its burden of proving the accused's presence at the crime scene. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 of the IPC, and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender forthwith. The Court found no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants, concluding that the charges against them were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
|
