LexBIJOY SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BIJOY SINGH AND ANR. A v. STATE OF BIHAR APRIL 17, 2002 [R.P. SETHI AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] B • Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 149 and 307: Murder-Twelve accused-Evidence indicating involvement of two accused in commission of crime-Death of one and injury to other victim- C Delay in recording statement of material injured witness-Delay in lodging FIR and sending report-Inconsistency in evidence of eye-witness-Held in the circumstances involvement of only two accused was established-Their conviction and sentence upheld-Other accused held entitled to benefit of ~ D C<ide of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154 and 157: FIR-Delay in lodging and sending report-Effect of-Magistrate receiving report-Duty to note date and time of receipt. Criminal trial-Party factions and group rivalries-: Tendency to implicate innocent persons-Duty of Court to sift evidence. Criminal trial-Number of accused-All except one preferring appeal- Benefit of doubt given to accused-Held accused who has not preferred appeal E is also entitled lo benefit of judgment. F Evidence-Related witnesses-Testimony of-Admissibility. 12 persons including the appellants were tried under Sections 302, 149 and 307 1.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. They were charged for having committed the murder of one V and attempt to murder S, PW-5. The G prosecution story was that on 25th August, 1991 V and S were offering Puja in the temple at about 5 P.M. All the accused persons, armed with fire arms, came firing from all the directions. On the exhortation of A-1, A-2 fired at V who succumbed to his injuries. A-3 fired at S, PW 5; and when the latter fell down A-3 assaulted him with butt of his fire arm. Besides examining S eye- 179 H 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A witnesses, who witnessed the occurrences from nearby field, the prosecution ... examined six other witnesses including doctors who conducted post mortem of deceased. It also examined the injured PW-5 and the Investigation Officer. There was delay in lodging the FIR and sending its copy to the Magistrate. Statement of the material injured witness, PW-5, was recorded for about 9 - ·~ days. In testimony of one of the eye-witness, PW-7, there was contradiction B between bis statement made in the Court and bis Fardbayan statement The trial court convicted all the accused persons of the offences charged and .. sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life. Appeals preferred by accused persons were dismissed by High Court All the accused persons except A-11 preferred appeals before this Court c In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that (i) there was delay in lodging the FIR and sending its copy to Magistrate (ii) no satisfactory explanation bas been offered by prosecution for non- recording the statement of material injured witness, PW-5, for about 9 days; (iii) except accused Nos. 2 and 3 no other accused person bad done any overt D act in furtherance of the alleged common object; and (iv) witnesses being related witnesses no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court t"'t HELD: 1. The First Information Report is a report giving information E of the commission of a cognizable crime which may be made by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of such an offence. It is not the requirement of law that the minutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence. The fact of the state of mental agony of the person making the FIR who generally is the victim F himself, if not dead, or the relation or associates of the deceased victim apparently under the shock of the occurrence reported bas always to be kept in mind. (185-G; 186-D) VNK Meharaj Singh v. State o/U.P., [1995) Criminal Law Journal 457, referred to. G 2. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157 Cr.P.C. is the mandate of law. The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court J.. was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of H deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved BIJOYSINGHv. STATEOFBIHAR 181 in the commission of the crime. Delay wherever found is required to he A, explained by the prosecu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.