LexAPREN JOSEPH ALIAS CURRENT KUNJUKUNJU & ORS. versus THE STATE OF KERELA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ie
APREN JOSEPH A.LIAS CURRENT KUNJUKUNJU &: ORS.
A
v.
Tim STATB. OF KBRALA
September l, 1972
{J. M. SHELAT, ACTING C.J., I. D. DUA, AND H. R. KHANNA, II.]
InditJn PtN.:l Codt-S. 302 rtad wth S. 148 imd 149-Mwdtr-EI«t
of btlattd F.I.R. wlrtn fatal.
ln Cr. A. No. 263 of 1971, accused Nos. 6 to 1~ were acquitted by
the trial_ Court but the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and
convicted them under S. 302/149 and 148 of I.P.C. In Cr. A •. No.~ 300
of 1971, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were convicted under S. 302/148 J.P.C. b7.
both the Courts below.
The alleged occurrence gh·ing rise to the prosecution of the appellants
took place on the night be! ween· December 13 and 14 at about 2 a.m. as
a result of political animosity between two groups of peoplo-the Marxists
and the agriculturists called the "Karshak Sangham", in Puthupally village
in Kottayam, Ker6la. 'The eye-witnesses, for fear of retaliation, did not
rep(!rt the crim~·to.the police.
Only on the next day, a member of the
1~1 panc~ayat (P.W 2), lodged :t~e F.I.R. at 8 A.M. at Kottayam East
Pollee Stallon, 9 JCM. away from the place of occurrence.
Before this Court, tile 'following points were raised on behalf of the
appellants :-(i) that the first information report i! highly belated and
(ii) that the alleged eye-witnesses did not lodge the c:omplaint' becauae
they h;~d in fact not w:tnessed the oc;curre'lce, and the accused have been
falsely implicated.
Partly allowing the app~al,
HELD : ('i) The Fir: t Information Report relating to the commissior.t
elf an offence is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of II'
~rim!nal investigation. [23 C]
R. V. Khwaja, I.L.R. [1945] Lah. I, re'ferred to.
Nor does the statute provide· that such informatiOn r.:port can ooJy
be made by 2.'1 eye-w:tness.
F.I.R. is not even considered a substantive
piece of evidence.
It can only be used to corroborate or c:ootradict tbe
informants' evidence in court.
But this information ·when recorded
is the basis of the case set up by the informant.
It is very useful it
recorded before there is time and opportunity to embeUisb, or before the
informants' memory fades.
Undue or unreasonable .delay lodging the F.I.R., therefore, give. rise
to suspicion which put the Court on guard to look for the possible motive
and the explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthj..
ness of the prosecution ve~ion. No duration of time in the abstract can
be fixed a< reasonably for giving information of a crime to the police, the
question of reasonable time being a matter foe determ·inatioa by the court
. in each case. [23 E)
(ii) In the pre~Cnt case, the eye-witnesses were tiraid to go to cbt
police station during night time and their evidence could Dot be shabcl
in cros~amination.
Keeping 'in view the local tense atmosphere aod
the effect of the ghastly murder on the eye-witnesses, their strong· di!incli-
cation to go and lodge the repott ·during the night after the alltged
., 'I
.B
c
()
F
H
..
.A
B
c
D
II
• ·• · ·· . APREN JOSEPH l'. KERAL.\ ·
17
o~c_urrcnce, which seems ~uitc nOJ·m;~l, cannot by itself arouse any sus-
piCIOn about the prosecution case.
Further, the prosecution version -as
a whole, has al!>o been :1ccepted by both the Courts below for rea~ons
which cannot be said to he uns<.HtnJ or implausible.
Therefore, the:
Jclay in m:~king the F.l.R. hao; rt..~~o:1ahly been expl:1inecl by the prosecv-
tion wit nesscs.
(iii) Tt is not &·putcd and inth:eu r-Oth the Courts below have found
that on December 12, 1970, there was full moon, aod as such, there was
moon-light at the time · of the occurrence. The ne:lrest street light wa•
ahout 130 ft. away t-ow-:~ rds the \'.C';t and th::
n-:ar~st electric post on
the eastern side was ;:.bout 90 ft. tm ay from the place of occurrence.
The light of the lorry, which was :.1< the pbc.:, :!:;o hcli)cJ -.yc witnes~cs
to clearly !.C.:: who the assailants were. Th.:: C"licurrc:-ot c ~ :lc!c! :;)n of the
tl'lo Courts below leaves no doubt that the witnesses prc-;r.nt r.• the place
of occurrence were in a p0sition to ch::ar!y t;cc a'"~d identify the acc\L<;eJ
pcnons "ho \\"ere not strangers to them.
Th.:rdon::. conviction of ac-
cus-:<.1 No;. I to 5 under S. 30:! 1. P.C. anJ S. 14S i~ uphclJ as also the
•.cntcncc under S. 148 I.P.C.
Accused No. 6 h~s also h:en rightly founJ
guilty and his sentence is ulso confirmt!J.
(iv) As regards ac'q1~.::J No'i. 7Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.