LexDILAWAR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 7 S.C.R. 844 DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1362 OF 2010) SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 149 - Fatal attack - Nine accused -Conviction of A-1, A-3, A-7 and acquittal of rest of C · accused - Conviction challenged on the ground that PW-6, the father of the victim-deceased was not present at the spot and thus was not an eye-witness; that there was delay in lodging FIR which drew cloud of suspicion on the prosecution version - Held: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts o in his own way - The sequence of events clearly showed that PW-6 was taking all steps to save life of his son - Thus evidence of PW-6 cannot be disbelieved simply because he did not react in a particular manner - Delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained - PWs 6 and 7 spoke in one voice E against A-1, A-3 and A-7 - Their evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence which strengthened the prosecution case - Based on their confessional statements of the disclosure, crime weapons were recovered - Concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below qua A-1, A-3 and A- F 7 were based on evidence and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court is not to be disturbed in exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution - Evaluation of the evidence by High Court while recording an order of acquittal, also did not suffer from any infirmity - No interference with the order of acquittal of A-4, A-6 and A-8 called for. ' G H Witness: Behaviour/reaction of witnesses - Held: Behaviour of the v.titnesses or their reactions differ from situation to situation and individual to individual - Expectation 844 DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 845 of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic A and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction. Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Discussed. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1 PW-6 was busy in arranging medical aid to save his son and, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal. Expectation of uniformity in the c reaction of witnesses is unrealistic and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction. From the very beginning the condition of injured was very serious and he was struggling for existence and his father PW-6 and uncle were concerned about the 0 welfare of the injured. While so, they .could not have thought of approaching the police first and informing them about the incident and the assailants. Since delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained, there was no ground for disbelieving the prosecution evidence particularly when it was accepted by the courts below. 1[Paras 20, 21] [856-B-E] E I Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 1327; State of H.P. v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660: 2004 (4) i 1 ·suppl. SCR 269; Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of F Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417: 2012 (9) SCR 1173; Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211; Charanjit & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2013) 11 SCC 163 - relied on. 2. The power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is very wide. But in criminal appeals, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of ,fact save in exceptional circumstances. PWs 6 and 7 have G H 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A spoken in one voice against A-1, A-3 and A-7. Their evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence which strengthened the prosecution case. Based on their confessional statement of the disclosure, cutters were recovered and detection of human blood in those cutters B also lent credence to the prosecution case. There was no miscarriage of justice by the courts below while arriving at the said findings and the impugned judgment of the High Court is not disturbed in exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 24 to 26, 28, C 31) [857-G; 858-D-F; 861-B-C] 3. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely D because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not cor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.