AMBIKA PRASAD AND ANR. versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 21-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
AMBIKA PRASAD AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI) 
JANUARY 21, 2000 
(G.B. PATTANAIK A.~ M.B. SHAH, JJ.J 
Criminal law : 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
Sections 156 and 15'7--Defective investigation-Effect of-Held : It is 
11ot proper to acquit the accused, despite dr:f ective investigation, if the case is 
otherwise established conclusively. 
Section 309-Witnes.i--Examination of-Held : Should be continued 
D from day to day so as not to give a chance to the accused to threaten or win 
over the witness. 
Criminal Trial: 
Object of-Duties of Judge-Held: A Judge should not only see that 
E no innocent man is punished but also ensure that a guilty man does not 
escape. 
Prosecutiort-lnvestigating Officer (10)-Non-examination of-10 did 
not step into the witness box without any justifiable ground-However, 10 was 
not a material witness for establishing whether the accused or the complainant 
F pany was the aggressot-Evidence of injured witnesses corroborated by medi-
cal evidence-Accused had examined defence witnesses for establishing their 
say-Held : non-examination of 10 is no ground for discarding such evidence. 
Prosecutiort-lndependent witnesses--Non-examination of-Held : 
G Cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. 
Prosecutiort-lnjured witnesse.i--Examination of-Delay in--One of 
them had injuries on his face with swollen mouth and could hardly 
speak-The other was under tremendous fear from the accused per-
sons-Their evidence was convincing and reliable-Held: Mere delay in their 
H examination not a ground to discard their evidence. 
342 
\__
.-
A.\rnIKA PRASAD v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) 
343 
Evidence-Appreciation of-Name of 011e of the accused not men-
tioned ill FIR-However, his identity was mentioned in the FIR- All the 
prosPcutiun witnesses identified him and there was no reason to falsely 
implicate him-Held : Courts below have rightly rejected the contention that 
the evidence of the eyewitnesses should not be relied upon since the accused 
fr not named in the FIR. 
Evidenc-Appreciation of-Aggressor-Detenni11ation of Record did 
not indicate that-Complainant paity was anned with any weapon-As 
against this accused persons were anned with deadly weapons-Injuries 
caused to complainant party more serious while minor injuries caused to two 
A 
B 
of the accused--Held : In the circumstances of the case, accused persons are C 
the aggressors-Pena/ Code, 1860, S. 97. 
The appellants-accused were convicted for offences under Sections 
302/34, 341/34 and 307/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer 
imprisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction and 
sentence. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the accused persons, armed with 
deadly weapons, came to the disputed plot of land being cultivated by the 
complainant party and fired a shot at one V who died on the spot. 
On behalf of the accused persons it was contended that the inves-
tigating ofiicer was not examined; that two police officers resiled from their 
earlier statements; that the investigation was defective; that no inde· 
pendent witness was examined; that there was delay in the examination of 
D 
E 
two injured witnesses; that the name of one of the accused was not 
mentioned in the FIR; and that the complainant party was the aggressor F 
and not the accused persons. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In a case of defective investigation it would not be proper 
to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively. A G 
criminal trial is meant for doing justice to the accused, victim and the society 
so that law and order is maintained. A Judge does not preside over a 
criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also 
presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the 
other. Both are public duties, which the Judge has to perform. [351-A-B] 
H 
344 
SlIPREMF COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Kamel Singh v. State of lvfP, [1995] 5 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav v. 
State of Bihar, (1998] 4 SCC 517; Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, [1999] 2 
SCC 126 and State of UP v. Anil Singh, AIR (1988) SC 1998, relied on. 
1.2. 1'on-examination of investigating officer, in the present case, has 
no bearing on the appreciation of the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses. 
B The police officers resiled from their own statements and deposed some-
thing contrary before the court to help one of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.