LexBHAGALOO LODH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 1037 BHAGALOO LODH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2007) JUNE 14, 2011 • [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Homicidal death due A B to sharp edged weapon - Conviction under s.302 r/w s.34 - Challenge to - Held: Prosecution furnished satisfactory C explanation for delay of 9 hours in lodging the FIR - PW1 explained that the incident occurred at night and he could not go to the police station, which was at a distance of 18 Kms, out of fear - Both eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased but their testimonies had been found trustworthy by D both the courts below, and thus cannot be discarded - Conviction accordingly upheld. FIR - Delay in filing of FIR - Effect of - Held: Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all E its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version - In case there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same - In absence of such an explanation, the delay may give presumption that allegations/accusations were false - Delay in lodging the FIR F does ~...make the complainant's case improbable when such delay -is properly explained. Evidence - Evidence of a close relative - Held: Can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy - Such evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are G inter"related to each other or to the deceased. According to the prosecution, pursuant to a quarrel, the two accused-appellants alongwith a co-accused-'RL' 1037 H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A caught hold of PW1 's brother while another co-accused- 'BS' gave him several blows by a sharp edged weapon "Karauli" due to which PW1 's brother died on the spot 'RL' died during the course of trial. The Sessions Court convicted the appellants and accused-'BS' under B Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants and co-accused 'BS'. Before this Court, the appellants challenged their C conviction inter alia stating that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 9 hours and the prosecution failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the same; and that PW1 and PW2, the alleged eye-witnesses, were very close relatives of the deceased, and thus, their testimonies cannot be relied upon safely. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW.4 and he found 12 ante-mortem E incised wound injuries. The cause of death spelt out in the post-mortem report was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. In his deposition in the Trial Court, PW 4 reiterated the said cause of death and also stated therein that the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to a sharp edged F weapon, like karauli and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. [Para 5] [1045-B-C; 1046- E-F] 2. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by G the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation ·for the same. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may give presumption that allegations/accusations H were false and had been given after thought or a coloured BHAGALOO LODH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 1039 version of events. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR A does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. In the instant case, so far as the delay in lodging the FIR is · concerned, it has been explained by PW.1. The incident B occurred at 9.00 P.M. on 25.10.1999 and the FIR was lodged on 26.10.1999 at 6.10 A.M. at the police station at a distance of 18 K.M. from the place of incident. PW.1 mentioned that on account of fear of the· accused persons, he could not go to the police station to lodge c the FIR at night. This explanation has been found by both the courts below to be perfectly convincing, and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below had drawn an inference that the explanation furnished was quite satisfactory. There is no 0 cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below. [Para 7, 9) [104
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.