LexABU THAKIR AND ORS. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 4 S.C.R. 794 ABU THAKIR AND ORS. v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2008) APRIL 19, 2010 1 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Conviction under, based on C evidence of eye witnesses - Challenged on the ground that presence of prosecution witnesses at the place of incident was doubtful and there was delay in submitting their evidence recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C. which would make their statements unacceptable - Held: The presence of eye D witnesses at the place of incident was well established by evidence - Investigating officer explained that delay in sending the s.161 statements was due to two murders in quick succession within his jurisdiction of which he was incharge to maintain law and order - The explanation for delay was E convincing - Thus, conviction was based on proper appreciation of evidence - No reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161 - F Evidence - Testimony of eye-witnesses. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.161 - Documents such as original report, the printed form of FIR, inquest report, statements of witnesses recorded under inquest and under s.161 - Importance of requirement of sending these G documents to the Court without any delay and effect of delay in sending the documents on prosecution case - Discussed. Witness: Witness to a murder - Response or behavioral pattern of every person in such situation may not be similar. 794 ABU THAKIR v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 795 POLICE, TAMIL NADU Prosecution case was that the deceased was A murdered in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched by the appellants and other accused persons to wreck vengeance of the murder of one 'SM' l,ll(hich took place two days prior to the incident. On the fateful day, PW-4 informed, PW-1, brother of the deceased that the B deceased and some other persons were quarreling nearby. PW-1 rushed to the place near temple where he found the deceased lying on the ground unconscious with bleeding injuries. PW-5 and PW-28 who were returning from the temple, heard the distress noise and C went towards the scene and found deceased lying in pool of blood. Deceased was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. The trial court accepted the case of prosecution and believed the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 and based on their evidence, convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 1208, 148, 341, 147, 302 read with Sections D 149 and 109 IPC. The High Court however, confirmed the conviction of the appellants only under Section 302, IPC and acquitted them of the rest of the charges and completely acquitted rest of the accused. E In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the appellants that the presence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 at the place of incident was doubtful; and that there was enormous delay in submitting the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Court since they were F received by the Court after eleven days of recording the statements. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It was in the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 that G after witnessing the ghastly incident of attack, they fled away from the scene of offence due to fear. The response, beh.avioural pattern of individuals in such a situation differs from person to person and it cannot be said that response of every and any human being would H 796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 4 S.C.R. A be similar on such occasions. May be PWs 2 to 4, were reeling under shock and nervousness. They roamed here and there and reached their respective houses only in the evening after 5 p.m. There was no question put in the cross-examination to PW30-lnvestigating Officer, as to B why he did not examine PWs 2, 3 and 4 immediately at the time of inquest or thereafter. The mere fact that they were not examined during the inquest is of no consequence. It was nobody's case that they were present at the time of inquest and yet their statements C were not recorded by the 1.0. On these grounds, the presence of PW2 at the scene of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. That apart, the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 that the appellants were the assailants, would get support from the evidence of PWs 5 and 28. While PWs 5 and 28 were returning after worship at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.