BUDH SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-
> 
...... 
BUDHSINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
MAY 18, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Murder-Conviction-Upheld by High Court-
Interference with-Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses reliable and the 
prosecution case stands proved-FIR was lodged at quickest possible time C 
and not anti timed-Essential material facts disclosed in FIR-Also date of 
occurrence as stated in FIR correct-Improvements by complainant not of 
much significance-Also report of ballistic expert established participation 
of accused-Thus, order of courts below calls for no interference-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 154-Criminal Trial. 
According to the prosecution case, appellant and the other two accused 
armed with guns surrounded D. At exhortation of K, appellant fired a shot at 
D 
D. G-Brother ofD and M shouted and accused A and GL fired on them and 
they lay down on the ground. Villagers came to the spot. G lodged an FIR. 
Dead body of the deceased was brought to the police station. Head constable 
made inquest of the dead body and sent it for post mortem. Doctor gave the E 
report. Bullet found in the body of the deceased was sealed and handed over to 
the constable. Accused were arrested and guns were recovered at their 
instance. Ballistic expert gave his report. Witnesses were examined. Trial 
Court convicted the appellant. High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the 
present appeal 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for 
acquittal. Witnesses examined on behalf of the 'prosecution have been believed 
both by the Trial Judge as also by the High Court. There is no reason to differ G 
from the order of conviction of the appellant. [Para 26) [395-C, D] 
2.1. The prosecution case stands proved from the evidence of first 
informant and M. It appears that a confusion in regard to date of occurrence 
arose and only a Xeroxed copy of the FIR was produced before this Court. 
385 
II 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Res~ndent however produced another Xeroxed copy of FIR, from a perusal 
whereof it appears that the date of occurrence is also written in Hindi to be 
31st July. (Para 11) (391-C, D) 
2.2. The question as to whether FIR is an ante timed one or not must be 
considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Having 
B perused the FIR, although the same was transcribed by head constable from 
the ocal statement made by the co_mplainant, it contained all the material 
particulars. The very fact that it was recorded almost immediately after taking 
place of the occurrence, the question of its being an ante timed one would not 
arise. (Para 23) (394-F, G) 
c 
Meharaja Singh (UNk.) v. State of UP., (1994) 5 SCC 188, relied on. 
2.3. The purported improvement made by the complainant is not ofmuch 
significance. FIR was lodged at the quickest possible time and was recorded 
by the Head Constable. FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire 
D event. It cannot contain the minutest details of the events. The essential 
material facts were disclosed in the FIR. 
[Paras 20 and 21) (394-At BJ 
'· 
2.4. The dead body was sent for post mortem immediately to the hospital 
Doctor noted in his post mortem report, the time when the dead body had been 
E received at the mortuary. Duration of time between the actual death and the 
post mortem examination has been stated to be within 36 hours. Had the 
occurrence taken place on 30th July, it would have been stated by the doctor 
to be more than 36 hours. [Para 11) (391-E, F; 392-A) 
Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (2007) SC 132; Ramreddy 
F Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (2006) SC 
1656; Ramjee Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCALE 440 and Baso 
Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCALE 354, referred to. 
2.5. P.W. 11-police personnel incharge of chouki recorded the 
statements of prosecution witnesses on the same day. He carried out the 
G investigation. The manner in which the occurrence had taken place is clearly 
corroborated by the medical evidence. [Para 12] (391-F, G) 
2.6. Blackenning of the wound can be found only when the shot is fired 
from a short distance namely at about 3 to 4 feet and not beyond the same. 
H Absence of any blackening of the wound has rightly been not found in the 
BUDH SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. [S.8. SINHA, J.) 
387 
post mortem examination. (Para 19) (393-G; 394-AJ 
A 
2.

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