LexANJAN DASGUPTA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016) 12 S.C.R. 90 ANJAN DASGUPTA v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 298 of2006) NOVEMBER25, 2016 (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Criminal Law: Murder Case - Re-appreciation of evidence - Two possible views - Prosecution case that the victim was shot at, on the indication/ instruction of appellants-accused - Trial court acquitted appellants - High Court after re-appreciating the evidence set aside the order of acquittal of appellants - On appeal, held: While entertaining an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on appreciation of evidence the view in favour of the accused has to be given importance - In case an order of acquittal has been made 011 improper and erroneous appreciation of evidence, it is always open to the court of appeal to make proper and reasonable appreciation of evidence and differ from the order of acquittal - On facts, discarding of evidence by the trial court was on flimsy grounds and based on surmises and conjectures which was correctly re- appreciated by the High Court - High Court after re-appreciating the evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the occurrence as well as participation of appellant was proved - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34, s.212 - Arms Act - ss. 25, 27 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.164. FIR - Ante-dated and ante-timed FIR - Allegations of - Held: On facts, PW-29, AS! proved the FIR and also his signature thereon - He denied the suggestion that the FIR was written subsequently - Thus, no case of ante-dating of the FIR - Further, no inconsistencies in the FIR so as to come to the conclusion that the FIR was ante- timed. FIR - Delay in dispatching FIR from Police Station to Magistrate - Effect of - Held: It is only extraordinary and unexplained delay, which may raise doubts regarding the authenticity of the FIR - In the present case, where recording of FIR itself has 90 ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 91 been proved and accepted by the trial court also, mere delay in A dispatch of the FIR from the police station to the Magistrates' court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse presumption can be drawn: Investigation - Criminal investigation - Held: Receipt and the recording of FIR is not a condition precedent for setting in motion 8 of criminal investigation - On facts, when infor111ation was received that the victi111 was shot dead, police was duty bound to start investigation. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is e~i~ence of PW 1 (son of victim) that he went to the police station between 7.30/8.00 PM and the First Information Report was written by PW 5 on his dictation. Both the above facts have been proved by the statement of PW 1 and PW 5; both have signed the written complaint. Further, ASI PW 29 proved the recording of the FIR on the basis of written complaint given by son of victim-deceased. No suggestion was put to PW 29 regarding the date or time of recording of the FIR. PW 29 has proved the FIR, he further proved that he received the FIR on 16th June, 2000, he proved his signature on th~ FIR also. He denied the suggestion that FIR was written on subsequent to 161• June, 2000. Thus there is no case of ante- dating the FIR, even the trial court did not accept the submission that FIR was ante-dated. [Paras 12, 13] [97-F-ll; 98-A] 1.2. In the present case, the FIR was registered before the inquest report of dead body started. The evidence indicates that information of death was received by the police station before 17 .15 hours and police officials arrived at the spot immediately and the 1.0. arrived at the spot at 17 .45 PM, by that time other police officials had already reached. The receipt and the recording of First Information Report is not a condition precedent for setting in motion of a criminal investigation. When the information was that the victim was shot dead, police was duty bound to start investigation. Though much UJ1ph~sis has been laid down by the appellant on the fact that "time 17.35" was noted in the FIR, however, from the cross-examination of ASI, it does not appear that any question was asked regarding the recording time 17.35 c D E F G H 92 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20l6l 12 S.C.R. in the FIR. The possibility cannot be ruled out that while registering the FIR on the basis of written complaint, the ASI recorded the time when
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.