BALWAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1
1
BALWAN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2015)
AUGUST 06, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.120-B and ss.148, 302/149– Case of the
prosecution that on account of previous enmity with the victim-
deceased, the appellant was talking with the other accused regarding
preparation to kill him – Their conversation was heard by PW-11
and PW-12 – PW-9 and PW-16, who were near the scene of the
occurrence, rushed to the spot after hearing the cries of the victim,
and saw all the accused assaulting him with lathis and tabbal– Accused
convicted u/ss.148, 302/149 –Charges were framed u/s.120-B also
but, the accused were acquitted in respect of the said offence – On
appeal, held: Statements of the alleged eye witnesses, PW-9 and
PW-16 were recorded after eight days of the incident – Prosecution
tried to explain the delay in recording their statement – In normal
course, the Court would have accepted the explanation offered,
but the facts in this case are different – PW-2 admitted that he had
seen PW-9 at the place of the incident when the police had come to
the village after the registration of the FIR – Thus, the IO knew very
well, on the first day itself, that PW-9 was an eye witness – There
was no reason as to why he did not record the statement of the so-
called eye witness at the earliest point of time – Whole story of the
prosecution about the presence of PW-9 and PW-16 at the time of
incident appears to be concocted – Prosecution also relied upon
the recovery of bloodstained sticks and tabbal – In the absence of
positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human
origin (even though the blood group was not proved because of
disintegration of blood) and of the same blood group as that of the
accused, it would be difficult to rely upon the aspect of recovery of
the weapons– Further, all the accused were acquitted for the offence
of conspiracy, which means that there are concurrent findings of
the courts below that the prosecution failed to prove the aspect of
conspiracy of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
In view of the material on record which is shaky, suspicion arises in
the mind of the Court about the genesis of the case of the prosecution
– Impugned judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court set
aside – Appellants to be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
Criminal Trial – Delay in recording of the statement of eye
witnesses – When does not raise suspicion – Discussed.
Evidence– Recovery of bloodstained weapon– Burden to be
discharged by the prosecution – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though the incident took place on 22nd January,
2007, the statements of the alleged eye witnesses, namely, PW-9
and PW-16, were recorded after eight days of the incident. The
prosecution tried to explain the delay in recording the statement
of the eye witnesses by contending that they were scared of the
accused, particularly the appellant who was the village Sarpanch
(Panchayat Chairman); the appellant was stated to be powerful
and influential; only after some of the accused were arrested,
these witnesses came to the village and gave their statements to
the police during the course of investigation. Mere delay in
recording of the statement of the eye witness by the investigating
officer cannot ipso facto raise suspicion in the mind of the Court
about the veracity of the prosecution case, more particularly, about
the veracity of the eye witnesses. In the normal course, this Court
would have accepted the explanation offered by the witnesses or
the prosecution for not recording the statements at an earlier
point in time, but the facts in this case are different inasmuch as
it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses, more particularly by
the investigating officer, that PW-9 was very much present in the
village. PW-2 had admitted in the cross-examination that he had
seen PW-9 at the place of the incident when the police had come
to the village after the registration of the First Information
Report. PW-2 is none else but the younger brother of PW-9, and
they were residing separately in one house. Thus, the evidence
of PW-2 cannot be disbelieved insofar as it relates to the presence
of PW-9 in the village, and on the spot when the police had started
investigation. PW-9, being the Patel 

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