LexDEVINDER versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DEVINDER
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
SEPTEMBER 13, 1996
B
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 157-Circumstances for
benefit of doubt-Non-disclosure of the names of the accused at the earliest C
opportunity-Delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate-Benefit of
doubt can be given to the accused-:4nns Act, 1959-Ss. 25, 27-TADA Act,
s. 6.
At about 9.00 A.M. on 26th July, 1986 the appellant was alleged to D
have given two blows to the victim with knife-one on the left side of the
chest and the other on the abdomen, in presence of two eye witnesses, who
carried the injured to the Hospital, where he was examined by the doctor,
who certified that at the time of admission the victim was fully conscious.
The medico-legal report contained the name of his father, address, occup-
tation and an account as to how the injuries were caused to him. The A.S.I. E
recorded the statement of P.W. 10 in the Hospital at 2.40 P.M. and the
same was treated as FIR and a case under section 307 was registered. The
injured succumbed to his injuries the next day at about 11.30 A.M. and on
his death the case was converted to section 302 IPC and then only a special
report was sent to the Magistrate. Charges were framed against the F
accused under section 302 IPC and unde1 section 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA for unlawful possesion and user of
a spring activated knife. The Designated Court, relying upon the testimony
of the eye witnesses held the accused guilty of the charges and convicted
him, against which the present appeal was moved before this Court.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Though apparently there is no reason to disbelieve the
two eye witnesses, yet there are certain underlying circumstances due to
which, benefit of reasonable doubt can be given to the appellant. [253·B; C] H
249
A
B
c
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
•
1.2. According to the prosecution, after the infliction of the injuries,
the victim was immediately taken to the hospital where he was examined
and ·a medico-legal report was prepared which contained all material
particulars like parentage, occupation, 'and an account as to how the
injuries were received, except the name of the assailant. Obviously these
material particulars had been furnished either by the victim himself or by
the eye witnesses present. In this view of the matter, it was expected that
if the appellant was really the assailant, then his name would have been
disclosed by all or any one of them. Legitimately it can be inferred that at
the earliest available opportunity the name of the appellant was not
disclosed. [253-C-E]
1.3. No special report in respect of the registration of the case was
sent· to the Magistrate on the day of occurrence and it was forwarded to
the Magistrate only after the case was converted to one under section 302
IPC consequent upon the death of the victim on July 27, 1986 and was
received in Magistrate's office at 10 P.M. This glaring circumstance indi-
D cates that the FIR did not see the light of the day till the death of the victim
and the version of the prosecution that the FIR was recorded on July 26,
1986 is not t111e. [253-G-H; 254-A]
E
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
446of1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.86 of the Designated
Court, Rohtak, Haty~a in Sessions Case No. 550 of 1986.
'
Ms. Rajni Anand (AC.) for the Appellant.
Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. The subject matter of challenge in this
appeal is the judgment and order dated May 30, 1987 rendered by the
G Designated Court, Rohtak, while disposing of Sessions Case No. 550 of
1986 and Arms Act Case No. 551 of 1986. By the impugned judgment and
order the Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Devinder @ Pappy
under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read
with Section 6 of Terrorist and disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985
H ('TADA' for short).
·'
DEVINDER v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.)
251
'
2. Shorn of details the prosecution case is as under : (a) Ramphal A
(the deceased) used to sell vegetables from his shop-cum- residence in the
Janta Colony, Rohtak city. On July 26, 1986 at or about 9 AM. the
appellant went to his shop and asked for some vegetables on credExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.