CHUNNI LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 05-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 410 
CHUNNI LAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2.006) 
JULY 5, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s.302 - Accused firing at his uncle causing his death -
Conviction by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Pleas of 
absence of motive for the crime, evidence of interested 
witnesses only and delay in filing FIR and starting 
investigation - HELD: Are not tenable - Motive for the crime 
,0 has been established because of the development of the 
events which entirely defeated the chances of the accused to 
inherit the property of his deceased uncle -
The eye-
witnesses being the sons of the deceased, their presence at 
the place of occurrence at the relevant time was usual and 
E expected - They have given a vivid account of the incident 
and the manner in which it occurred - Their evidence rould 
not be shaken by defence in cross-examination - The ocular 
evidence fully corroborates the medical evidence - The delay 
causecf due to reasonable factual situation cannot destroy 
prosecution case nor would it create any suspicion on 
F prosecution case - In the instant case, the entire area being 
dacoits infested area, the police station being far away from 
the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer having been 
required to attend the court at the relevant time, the court being 
at a distance from the police station, there is well reasoned 
G and proper explanation for the delay both in lodging the FIR 
and starting the investigation - Accused has been rightly 
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 -
Criminal law - Motive - Evidence - Testimony of related 
witnesses - Delay in lodging FIR and starting investigation. 
H 
410 
CHUNN! LAL v. STATE OF U.P. 
411 
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for A 
committing the murder of his uncle by gun shots. The trial 
court convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for 
life u/s 302 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction 
and the sentence. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was, inter 
alia, contended for the appellant that there was no mQtive 
for him to commit the crime; that the prosecution, in order 
8 
to prove its case, examined only the interested witnesses 
who were closely related to the deceased and the C 
independent witness, namely, PW-5, having turned 
hostile, conviction could not be recorded; and that there 
was ,delay in lodging the FIR and initiating the 
investigation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As regards the motive for the crime, in the 
instant case, it is established from the records that PWs 
D 
1 and 2 were born out of the relationship between the 
deceased and their mother who earlier was kept as a 
E 
mistress or concubine by the deceased for about 25-26 
years. It is also established from the evidence adduced 
that about three months prior to the incident the 
deceased performed marriage with the said lady and a 
document was executed in that regard on 15.2.1978 
before the Marriage Officer. It is to be noted that the 
incident took place only a few months thereafter, that is, 
F 
on 7 .5.1978. In the circumstances, there was no 
possibility at all Qf the appellant inheriting the property 
of his t.lncle and, therefore, the plea taken by him that he 
being the nephell'.'. and as such, the natural heir of the 
G 
deceased, there was no motive for him to commit the 
crime, is without any merit. [Para 8-9] [417-A-D; 417-F-G] 
Raghubir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1996) 3 
SCR 389 = (1996) 9 SCC 233, relied on. 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. It is no doubt true that PWs 1 and 2 are the sons 
of the deceased and they are brothers. They have been 
examined in the trial as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 
Their evidence also indicates that besides them there 
was another independent witness, namely, the Pradhan 
B who was also present at the place of occurrence when 
the incident occurred. It has also come in evidence that 
the said Pradhan died during the trial and before his ' 
evidence could be recorded. PWs 1 and 2 were cross-
examined at length by the defence but not even a single 
c question was put in their cross-examination that they 
were not present at the place of occurrence. They are 
natural witnesses as their presence at the place of 
occurrence at the relevant time was usual and expected. 
[para 12) [418-H; 419-A-B] 
D 
2.2. Both PWs 1 and 2 have given a vivid account of 
th

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