LexANIL RAI versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ANIL RAI v. STATE OF BIHAR AUGUST 6, 2001 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Constitution of India-Articles 21, 141 and 142-Delay in pronouncement of Judgments by High Court-Practice deprecated-Guidelines/or expeditious C pronouncement of Judgments laid down-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- S.353 (/). Criminal Procedure Code-S.157- FIR-Promptly recorded and investigation started-Delay in sending D the copy to the area Magistrate-Held, does not vitiate the prosecution case- Doubting the authenticity of FIR-Not every delay but only extraordinary and unexplained delay-Delay immaterial if prosecution gives cogent and reasonable explanation for such delay. E F Evidence Act 1872 : Witnesses-Testimony of-Name of PWs not mentioned in the FIR- Reliability of-Held, the purpose of FIR is to set the criminal law into motion and does not require the details or names of all the witnesses-Thus, merely because names of some of the PWs had not been mentioned in the FIR, their testimony does become unreliable. Witnesses-Inimical witnesses-Reliability of-Held, cannot be discarded merely on the ground of enmity which is otherwise convincing and consistent, particularly if he enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of crime. G Hostile witness-Witness declared hostile for not mentioning the name H of one of the accused-Held, does not completely efface the evidence of such witness-If his testimony is corroborated by other reliable evidence, conviction can be based thereupon. Penal Code-S, 3021149-Applicability of-Murder-Common object~ 298 ANIL RA! v. STA TE OF BIHAR 299 ~ No proof that there was· unlawful assembly to cause the death of deceased A persons-Held, sharing of common object and participation in the occurrence by each one of the accused has to be positively proved Held, on facts conviction and sentence under S. 3021149 cannot be sustained. Appellants alongwith five others were prosecuted for offences under S. 302 r/w S. 149 IPC and under S. 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution B case was that appellants along with others formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of committing the murder of 'L' and 'C' . On the date of occurrence while 'L' was returning home, accused persons caught hold of him. On hearing the noise, family members of 'L' viz. 'C', PWs I, 3, 5 and 6 rushed to the spot. When 'L' succeeded in extricating C himself and tried to run away, Al shot at him with his rifle. The moment 'C' reached the place of occurrence, A2 shot at him with his gun. Both 'L' and 'C' died on the spot. Accused were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against them. Trial Court convicted Al and A2 under S. 302 and rest of the accused under S 302 r/w S. 149 IPC. Trial court also convicted all the accused under S. 27 of the Arms Act. On appea~ High Court confirmed the conviction and D sentence of Al to A7 and acquitted AS and A9 for offences under S-302 r/w S. 149 IPC. SLP filed by A7 was dismissed by this court on account of his failure to produce proof of surrender. However, subsequently it was brought to the notice of this court that said accused had surrendered and was confined in jail. In the meantime Al and A6 died. Aggrieved by their conviction and E sentence A2 to AS have.filed the present appeals. In the present appeals, High Court after completion of arguments pronounced the judgment only after two years that too only when one of the judges concerned had reached the date of his superannuation. On behalf of appellants it was contended that as the witnesses relied F upon by the courts were inimical towards the accused persons, their testimony could not be relied upon without corroboration in material particulars; that there was delay in sending the copy of FIR to Area Magistrate; PW6 cannot be held to be an eye-witness as she has not seen the occurrence; that as the names of PWsl and 5 were not mentioned in the FIR, no reliance can be placed upon their testimony; and that since PW 12 was declared as hostile G witness and in his deposition he did not name A2, A2 was entitled to acquittal. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD : (Per Sethi, J) 1.1. Justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A done. Similarly whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worst than that. The inordinate, unexplained and negligent delav in pronouncing t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.