LexBALMIKI SINGH versus RAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 13 S.C.R. 628 A BALMIKI SINGH v. RAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 554-555 of 2002) B SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959 - s. 307 rlw s. 34/s. 27 - Prosecution under - Delay in lodging FIR and in dis- c patch of the same to Court - Non-examination of lnvestigat- ing Officer - Medical evidence as well as evidence of doctor contrary to evidence of the prime witness, on the basis of whose testimony conviction recorded by trial court-Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held: In view of the discrepancies in the D case, acquittal justified. .., ~ Respondents-accused were prosecuted u/s 307 r/w s. 34 IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act, 1959. On the basis of fardbeyan of the injured informant (PW 6), FIR was lodged. There was delay of two days in lodging FIR. Investigating E Officer was not examined during trial. Trial court convicted the accused relying on the evidence of PW 6. High court, in appeal, acquitted them. Hence the present appeals by the informant. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court ,,.._ HELD: 1.1 In view of the discrepancies in the case, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of ac- quittal. Vital facts have been noted by the High Court. The incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992. G The first information report was lodged on 13.8.1992. Strangely, the doctor (PW-7) stated that on the basis of requisition received from the police, he had examined the informant on 11.8.1992at11.30 a.m. It is not explained as to why the first information report was recorded on H 628 BALMIKI SINGH v. RAM CHANDER SINGH 629 & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 13.8.1992. In fact, the first information report shows that A the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992at1400 hrs. and the first information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m. The occurrence according to first information report took place at 7 .00 a.m. on 11.8.1992. Additionally, the report reached Court on 14.8.1992. The 10 was not examined B who could have explained the delay in registering the FIR and.dispatching the same to the Court and no reason was indicated as to why he was not examined. [Paras 6 to 8] (631-G] (631 8-E] 1.2 Evidence of PW-6 is also contrary to the medical c evidence in a sense that according to him there was one · shot. But there were three injuries. The High Court noted that there was no explanation for the third injury. Even doctor's evidence shows that the tw.o injuries cannot be ~ treated as an entry and exit rooms. [Para 7] [631-E-F] D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 554-555 of 2002 From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Appeal (S.I.) Nos. E 185 and 204 of 2000 AK. Pandey, Sudhanshu Saran, Shefali Jain, Shalini Chandra, Ranjana Narayan and Rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellant. , Sandhya Goswami and Gopal Singh for the Respondents. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the informant questioning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directing acquit- G tal of the respondents 1 & 2. Each of the accused persons was ~ found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years. Additionally, respon- dents were convicted for offence punishable under Section 27 H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going to see B his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reached near the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree armed with Garasa and country made rifle. The appellants began to abuse him, which was protested by the informant. Thereupon, accused Ramchandra ordered his son accused Shravan to fire c and Sravan fired upon the informant which hit his right chest. It has been stated that prior to this occurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place in between the informant and the accused persons on use of irrigational water. The informant after sustaining injuries sat down and thereafter he was taken 0 to Magadh Medical Hospital where he was treated and his Fardbeyan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.