ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 22-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

•1 
~ 
-:::\ 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 385 
" 
A 
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. 
A 
-
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF 
POLICE 
( 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1984 of 2008) 
• 
OCTOBER 22, 2009 
B 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
• 
~ 
~ 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.149/s.34 - Election 
dispute -
Inter-community clash - Armed assault - 40 c 
accused - Six deceased - Conviction of accused-appellants 
by Courts below -
Challenged, on grounds that the 
prosecution case was suspicious, particularly in view of non-
production of FIR book - Held: Non-availability of FIR Book, 
--
\ 
by itself, cannot persuade the Court to throw the entire 
D 
prosecution case - On facts, the Investigating Officer acted 
diligently and quickly and, therefore, confusion regarding the 
FIR was not such a discrepancy, which would taint the FIR with 
illegality -
The evidence of eye-witnesses, which included 
injured eye-witnesses, was supported and corroborated by 
E 
' 
other witnesses and such evidence could not be disturbed or 
\ 
ignored for the mere reason that FIR Book was not produced 
_. 
t 
or that there was doubt regarding the names of accused 
persons - lnspite of discrepancies about non-availability of 
the FIR Book, confusion about the FIR, some inconsistencies 
F 
in evidence of the complainant, there was ample evidence 
regarding guilt of the appellants - Conviction of appellants 
accordingly upheld. 
FIR -
Importance and appreciation of - Held: FIR 
G 
provides corroboration to the evidence of the maker thereof -
.., 
- It provides direction to Investigating Officer and necessary 
clues about the crime and the perpetrator thereof - However, 
no universal rule that if FIR is found to be with discrepancies, 
I 
385 
(,_ 
H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the whole prosecution case has to discarded. 
Witness - Hostile witness -- Held: Merely because a 
witness is declared hostile, whole of his evidence is not liable 
_ . to be thrown away. 
B 
According to the prosecution, on account of election 
dispute, the accused persons committed the murder of 
six persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community 
by assaulting them with various weapons while they were 
travelling in a bus. Three persons, i.e. PW1, 2 and 3, were 
C allegedly injured in the incident. 
D 
17 of the 40 accused, i.e. the accused-appellants 
were convicted by the Courts below under Section 302 
rlw Section 1491Section 34 IPC. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
whole prosecution case was liable to be thrown as being 
suspicious and the evidence was bound to be rejected, 
particularly in view of non-production of FIR book without 
any plausible reason, and that the Courts below erred in 
E relying upon the prosecution witnesses and convicting 
the appellants. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. PW-1 had lodged a complaint with PW-47 
(the Investigating Officer) with a graphic description of 
the assault. The witness himself was injured and with 
great difficulty, had gone to the hospital on a bicycle. It 
is obvious that the fear-stricken witness, who had seen 
6 persons being slaughtered ruthlessly, had with great 
G difficulty managed to run away in an injured condition to 
the hospital and getting the cue of the whole incident, the 
Investigating Officer went and recorded his complaint 
there in the hospital itself barely within one and half hours 
from the incident. That certainly would have taken some 
H 
' ; 
l-
/ 
I 
,.. / 
ALAGARSAMY AND ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 387 
DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 
_, 
time and without wasting any time further, the said FIR 
A 
was sent not only to the Police Station, but the copies 
thereof were sent immediately to the Magistrate. It could 
not be imagined that in such a short time, a fake FIR can 
be prepared with graphic description, not only of the 
incident, but the occurrences which took place prior to 
B 
the incident and subsequent thereto also, with the names 
of the accused persons, the weapons handled by them 
..... 
.,, 
and the role played by them, individually, as well as, 
collectively. PW-1 had written the complaint, duly signed 
by him, which complaint, without any waste of time, was c 
sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which the 
printed FIR was registered and then a copy thereof was 
sent to the Magistrate instantaneously. It completely rules 
out the FIR being a bogus document or a doctored 
.. . 
document. [Para 13] [403-E-H; 40

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.