ANIL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 10-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANIL 
v. 
STATEOFHARYANA 
MAY 10, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.302-Conviction under-Uncle of deceased was being attacked-He 
C called his nephews- Deceased opened the door and was shot by accused 
from a gun which he was carrying-There was no provocation-Fire was 
shot on vital part of body-Deceased was not carrying gun-He came out 
of the house only on hearing his uncle calling him-Injury was sufficient to 
cause death in normal course of nature-Ingredients of exception to s.300 
D not satisfied-Accused rightly convicted under s.302. 
The families of deceased and that of appellant were living in the same 
locality. The appellant had enmity with the deceased. Appellant had also been 
threatening him. R who is uncle of deceased had filed FIR to that effect. A 
marriage was taking place in the family of deceased. Appellant and his brother 
E 'M' objected to the singing of ladies. 
On the fateful day, when 'R' came out of the house, appellant asked him 
regarding the noise of singing. 'R' ignored him. When 'R' was returning 
back at 11 p.m., 'D' father of appellant caught hold of him. Appellant came on 
the spot armed with a gun. They started beating 'R'. 'R' called out for 
F deceased and when deceased opened the door, appellant fired a shot at him 
resulting in his death. PW-10, another nephew of 'R' also witnessed the 
occurrence. 'R' proceeded towards Police Station which was about 11 kms. 
On his way, he met Sub-Inspector and informed him about the incident. The 
FIR was recorded at 3.10 a.m. Sessions Judge acquitted 'D' and 'M' and 
G convicted appellant under s.302 IPC. The High court affirmed the conviction. 
H 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The cause of death in the opinion of Doctor (PW-9) was 
358 
l-
,-..,, 
ANILv. STATEOFHARYANA 
359 
extensive haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries which were ante- A 
mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. 
According to his opinion, "the injuries had been caused by firearm". The 
death is homicidal in nature. In a case of this nature, the evidence of the 
prosecution witnesses, should be considered keeping in view the backdrop of 
events. [Para 9 and IOJ [363-F, GJ 
B 
2.1. The incident had taken place at about I I p.m. The First Information 
Report was recorded at about 3.10 a.m. The dead body was lying in the house. 
The first informant and another had also been threatened. In the 
aforementioned situation, the First Information Report must be held to have 
been lodged without any delay. A First Information Report, as is well-known, C 
should be treated to be an encyclopaedia. The Sub-Inspector (PW-12) came 
to the village immediately. [Paras 12 and 13) [364-A, BJ 
2.2. The appellant contended that the investigating officer had not pointed 
out the spot from where the witness saw the occurrence in the site plan. This 
may be so. The site plan, however, shows all other details. It is not of much D 
dispute that 'R' was being assaulted on the way. The distance between the 
door of the complainant's house and that of'D' was about 20 feet. There is 
furthermore no dispute that the informant could see the incident. Appellant 
alone was armed with the gun. The other accused 'D' and 'M' were not. 
[Paras I 4 and 15) (364-C, D, E) E 
2.3. As 'R' was being assaulted, it was natural for him to give a call to 
his nephews. It is also but natural that they would respond to his call. Both 
the eye-witnesses had stated about firing of the shot. PW-10 might not have 
seen the actual firing of shot but as soon as deceased had fallen down on receipt 
of the fire arm injury, he could have seen the appellant with a gun. Appellant, F 
his father and brother went inside their house which is almost opposite to 
theirs. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PWs 8 and 10. 
'R' might have stated that the deceased received bullet injuries on the left 
side of his body. The injury on the left side of the body of the deceased was 
apparent. When a shot is fired all of a sudden, it is difficult for anybody to G 
give a vivid description of the entire incident. Deceased answered to his call 
and as soon as he opened the door he received the gun shot injury. In what 
position deceased was standing at the fateful moment can only be a matter of 
guess. It could not have been noticed by PW-8. It was also not possible. PWs 
8 and 10 are reliable witnesses. [Paras 16,1

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